On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 18:12 -0300, Pedro Lamarão wrote: > 2009/8/11 Pedro Lamarão <pedro.lama...@ccppbrasil.org>: > > > I've recently started my contributions to the gcc-in-cxx project, and > > eventually decided on the qsort suggestion because it seems the > > easiest one. > > Attached is a much more extensive patch replacing qsort with std::sort. > > I did not follow the suggestion of using bind to reuse the old > comparison functions. > Their "less" variants require less address taking and dereferencing > and are much smaller. > These functions are used at only one or two places, each of them -- > perfect for inlining. > This patch actually reduces the size of the final binary. > > I have not yet made complete size and execution speed measurements, though. > I've run the test suite and there are some failures; I think many of > them are not regressions when compared with a pure build with C++.
Why the changes to gcc/system.h where you unpoision malloc and realloc? Why the changes to libcpp/system.h where you unpoision malloc, realloc, calloc and strdup? /MF
