On Apr 19, 2013, at 17:31, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Later on I think it's better to either always use large hash tables
> (virtual memory is cheap) or to dynamically size them based on a
> estimate of the available types.
That logic doesn't really work for hash tables. Assuming the hash keys
as clos
On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This fixes a flaw in the mechanism implemented to register modes and types
> declared in the back-end with the front-end. The mechanism was implicitly
> making the assumption that it is possible to deduce the size of a FP mode
> from its precisio
On Feb 6, 2013, at 05:10, Kai Tietz wrote:
> this patch fixes an issue about recursice LN_S for mingw-host. The
> issue was already addressed by autotools, but an upgrade of version
> isn't suitable right now.
> For further information see the bug-report PR 52122.
>
> ChangeLog libada/
>
>
On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:32, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Looks good to me, go ahead, although I'm a bit surprised that you got an
>> error,
>> can you clarify what error you got?
>
> IIRC, that the flag was undefined.
> If it's important I can revert the fix in my local tree and re-build.
> Iaim
No n
On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:24, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> This patch implements a check in the runtime library that determines whether
>> the current target supports the atomic primitives up to 64 bits.
>
> If I understand the name of the flag, it looks like an "all or nothing" for
> atomic primitives?
On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:45, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> No, as we agreed and discussed, the flag does NOT have to be defined for all
> versions of system.ads, so this is a bug that needs to be fixed (precisely
> for the issue raised here: we don't want unknown or new ports to be broken
> by default).
On Jul 23, 2012, at 11:21, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:45, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> No, as we agreed and discussed, the flag does NOT have to be defined for all
>> versions of system.ads, so this is a bug that needs to be fixed (precisely
>> for the issue
On Sep 5, 2011, at 14:50, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> ... AFAICT from googling, powerpc-darwin9 has never bootstrapped ADA (I see
> questions but no resolution).
> Perhaps Adacore has a version ... but I was unable to find any starting point
> - so this was somewhat tough to debug.
Nope, if we had sup
On Apr 9, 2012, at 23:03, Mike Stump wrote:
> I'd like to remove execute permissions for:
>
> gcc/ada/*.adb
>
> Ok?
Sure. What about *.ads?
-Geert
On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:45, Mike Stump wrote:
> I assume that was a friendly, please feel free to fix *.ads as well.
Yes, sorry for the terse email. I wasn't quite sure if your message implied
there was only an issue with *.adb or not and wasn't in a position to check at
that time.
-Geert
On Nov 19, 2011, at 18:46, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Committed to wwwdocs.
BTW, I had taken the liberty to add a link to gcc.gnu.org/wiki
under the header Events. I also removed some 2010 events, as
they seemed stale now. Feel free to change if necessary.
-Geert
On Jan 10, 2012, at 14:28, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2012-01-10 Eric Botcazou
>
> * gimple.h (gimplify_body): Remove first argument.
> * gimplify.c (copy_if_shared): Add DATA argument. Do not create the
> pointer set here, instead just pass DATA to walk_tree.
The new void *da
On Feb 11, 2012, at 05:37, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The polymorphism pointer/address indeed proves to be problematic in certain
> circumstances (e.g. it breaks on m68k, see PR ada/48835). My understanding
> is
> that using pointers in Ada is heavyweight, hence the choice of an integer for
> Sys
On Jun 27, 2011, at 19:00, David Miller wrote:
> V8 can only reorder stores, that's why it only has a 'stbar'
> instruction. I'm not so sure I agree with trying to paper over the
> fact that someone has compiled code for v8 that's going to run on a v9
> cpu.
That's not the issue. While it is t
On Jun 27, 2011, at 19:53, David Miller wrote:
> I'm trying to find the part of the v8 manual that says there is
> a situation where we should use "stbar" and a "ldstub" to implement
> proper memory barriers. In particular I'm looking in Appendix J,
> "Programming with the memory models." Where
On Jun 27, 2011, at 22:45, David Miller wrote:
> From: Geert Bosch
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:21:47 -0400
>
>> On Jun 27, 2011, at 19:53, David Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Adding a ldstub here is going to be really expensive, on UltraSparc
>>> that can be 36+
On Mar 17, 2011, at 20:35, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> - substitutions of likely-spilled regs, reload might die.
>> + substitutions of likely-spilled regs, reload might die. Never
>> + combine asm statement.
>
This has to be "statements", a plural.
-Geert
17 matches
Mail list logo
