[ dup sorry ]
On Aug 13, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Felix Yang wrote:
> The qsort library function may have different behavior on
> different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
> OK for trunk?
I just have one question. Why if we want to use a stable sort, and we program
in C++, would we not want to just us
On Aug 13, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Felix Yang wrote:
>The qsort library function may have different behavior on
> different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
> OK for trunk?
I just have one question. Why if we want to use a stable sort, and we program
in C++, would we not want to just use C++:
http
On 08/13/14 07:55, Felix Yang wrote:
Is this possible a Canadian build. I am afread that the qsort then is
from the MinGW/Win host?
The stability of the sort is independent of the underlying qsort
implementation if the comparison routine is fully specified.
It's somewhat painful, but I'd reall
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/14 06:12, Felix Yang wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The qsort library function may have different behavior on
>> different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
>> We may have different sorting results with qsort when there are
>> elements wi
Is this possible a Canadian build. I am afread that the qsort then is
from the MinGW/Win host?
Cheers,
Felix
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/14 06:12, Felix Yang wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The qsort library function may have different behavior on
>> different hos
On 08/13/14 06:12, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi all,
The qsort library function may have different behavior on
different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
We may have different sorting results with qsort when there are
elements with the same key value.
GCC uses qsort a lot. And the output of ce
Hi Jakub,
I got it. I will update the patch after I finished integrating the
GLIBC qsort with libiberty.
Cheers,
Felix
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:48:52PM +0800, Felix Yang wrote:
>> I did tried to use the glibc qsort. I compared th
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:48:52PM +0800, Felix Yang wrote:
> I did tried to use the glibc qsort. I compared the source of the
> two versions.
> I found that the BSD one is more self-contained and easy for
> integration with libiberty.
Being more self-contained is not what we care about, t
Hi Jakub,
I did tried to use the glibc qsort. I compared the source of the
two versions.
I found that the BSD one is more self-contained and easy for
integration with libiberty.
That's why the BSD one is preferred.
And we already have several BSD functions there in libiberty
(libib
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:12:03PM +0800, Felix Yang wrote:
> The qsort library function may have different behavior on
> different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
> We may have different sorting results with qsort when there are
> elements with the same key value.
> GCC uses qsort a lot. A
Hi all,
The qsort library function may have different behavior on
different hosts (say Linux vs MinGW).
We may have different sorting results with qsort when there are
elements with the same key value.
GCC uses qsort a lot. And the output of certain optimizations,
such as IRA, relies o
11 matches
Mail list logo