On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:11:27PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> >
> > > Is this enough of a savings to continue on? I'm of two minds about it,
> > > one is
> >
> > The thing to measure is not so m
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 02:44:00PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:11:27PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is this enough of a savings to continue o
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:11:27PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
>>
>> > Is this enough of a savings to continue on? I'm of two minds about it,
>> > one is
>>
>> The thing to measure is not
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:11:27PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> > Is this enough of a savings to continue on? I'm of two minds about it, one
> > is
>
> The thing to measure is not so much memory as startup time (how long it
> takes to compile
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Is this enough of a savings to continue on? I'm of two minds about it, one is
The thing to measure is not so much memory as startup time (how long it
takes to compile an empty source file), which is important for libraries
and programs using a cod
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/13/2011 04:27 PM, Michael Meissner wrote:
>> This patch touches a bunch of files, but most of the changes are fairly
>> mechanical. What this does is change the infrastructure of how machine
>> independent builtin functions are ha
On 09/13/2011 04:27 PM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This patch touches a bunch of files, but most of the changes are fairly
> mechanical. What this does is change the infrastructure of how machine
> independent builtin functions are handled. At this point, there is no change
> to the compiler from
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:33:12PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> > implicit_built_in_decls to the new macros/functions, and poison
> > the old names. Make sure 0 is not a legitimate builtin index.
>
> I think the poisoning belongs in syst
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> implicit_built_in_decls to the new macros/functions, and poison
> the old names. Make sure 0 is not a legitimate builtin index.
I think the poisoning belongs in system.h; direct dependencies on the host
compiler (such as GCC_VERSION and
