Thanks for the work! I will try the Solaris builds once I get back to the office on Monday.
Regards, Elias On 5 April 2014 21:26, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>wrote: > Hi, > > I hope the Solaris issues are fixed now (SVN 187). Please complain if not. > > I decided against alloca() because the description on its man page > suggested more problems than advantages. > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 04/03/2014 02:55 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > It would, but OpenMP is not supported on it. Also, the Solaris Studio > compiler tends to generate better code. > > Also, alloca() (as opposed to malloc() which allocates memory on the > heap) behaves exactly the same as dynamically advocated arrays. They both > allocate space on the stack. In fact, I believe GCC generates exactly the > same code for both cases. They both essentially translates to an add > instruction of the stack pointer. > > Regards, > Elias > On 3 Apr 2014 20:33, "Juergen Sauermann" <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> > wrote: > >> Hi Elias, >> >> I will look into this, but some have performance impacts (dynamic arrays). >> Wouldn't it make sense to install gcc on Solaris? >> >> /// Jürgen >> >> >> On 04/02/2014 12:46 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >> >> Also, if you want to try out the Solaris compiler, it's available for >> free for Linux as well: >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solarisstudio/beta-1947596.html >> >> To enable OpenMP you need to compile with *-xopenmp=parallel* and set >> some environment variables as described here: >> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18659_01/html/821-1381/aewcb.html#gkcrd >> >> Regards, >> Elias >> >> >> On 2 April 2014 18:39, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Oh, and there are a few more dynamically sized arrays: >>> >>> - phrase_gen.cc:115 and 222 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elias >>> >>> >>> On 2 April 2014 18:34, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2 April 2014 18:32, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Declaring an array with a size computed at runtime is not actually >>>>> allowed (it's supported in modern C, and also supported in C++ as an >>>>> extension). >>>>> >>>> >>>> What I meant was that it's supported in *GCC* as an extension, not >>>> C++. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Elias >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
