Re: [help-texinfo] Re: small font in gcc online docs
2008/11/5 Jonathan Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Karl, > > Thank you for your reply > > [..] >> If some examples use @example and some examples use @smallexample, the >> resulting inconsistency looks quite bad as well (in both printed manuals >> and HTML). >> >> I doubt the GCC folks want to research and rewrite their examples to use >> shorter lines (so @example could be used). >> >> Sorry, I am still stuck for any positive action. > > I think you are right, and Firefox3 should be configured with some sensible > font sizes. However I've never been able to successfully get them to change > anything in the past after filing a bug report.. so we may be stuck with > this. You are expecting that the CSS large/small/x-small/etc match those of TeX. They are not matched. I don't know what formula TeX uses but Firefox uses a lookup table that is available here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/layout/style/nsStyleUtil.cpp#165 As you can see, for a medium font of 12 or 13 (which is the default size in Firefox), the small font is 10. There is a bug opened about this, but it doesn't seem to have attracted much interest. Perhaps you could explain the issue there and give them some motivation to fix this once and for all: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187256 Cheers, Manuel.
RE: [help-texinfo] Re: small font in gcc online docs
Hi Karl, Thank you for your reply [..] > If some examples use @example and some examples use @smallexample, the > resulting inconsistency looks quite bad as well (in both printed manuals > and HTML). > > I doubt the GCC folks want to research and rewrite their examples to use > shorter lines (so @example could be used). > > Sorry, I am still stuck for any positive action. I think you are right, and Firefox3 should be configured with some sensible font sizes. However I've never been able to successfully get them to change anything in the past after filing a bug report.. so we may be stuck with this. Thank you again for working though this problem with us. Regards, Jon
Re: RFC: A new meta intrinsic header file for x86 intrinsics
Hi HJ, On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote: > Icc will introduce to support intrinsics for current and > future instruction sets, starting with AVX. So how about the (IMO) nicer name this list came up the last time this was brought up (April): x86intrin.h . > My question is if we should put AVX intrinsics directly in immintrin.h > or in a separate file. Separate file seems more consistent. Ciao, Michael.
RE: RFC: A new meta intrinsic header file for x86 intrinsics
I agree with Michael on the naming and having separate files for AVX and including all the header files inside x86intrin.h. Also it would be easy for the users if we include all the instruction sets supported by both Intel and AMD in x86intrin.h file so that it is sufficient for the application developers to use only one header file for all the x86 based systems. Thanks, Dwarak > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Matz > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:29 AM > To: H.J. Lu > Cc: GCC Development; Ye, Joey; Guo, Xuepeng; Girkar, Milind > Subject: Re: RFC: A new meta intrinsic header file for x86 intrinsics > > Hi HJ, > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > Icc will introduce to support intrinsics for current and > > future instruction sets, starting with AVX. > > So how about the (IMO) nicer name this list came up the last time this was > brought up (April): x86intrin.h . > > > My question is if we should put AVX intrinsics directly in immintrin.h > > or in a separate file. > > Separate file seems more consistent. > > > Ciao, > Michael.
Re: RFC: A new meta intrinsic header file for x86 intrinsics
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:38 AM, rajagopal, dwarak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Michael on the naming and having separate files for AVX and > including all the header files inside x86intrin.h. > > Also it would be easy for the users if we include all the instruction > sets supported by both Intel and AMD in x86intrin.h file so that it is > sufficient for the application developers to use only one header file > for all the x86 based systems. > was rejected by icc. is selected. I don't see why you can't include AMD intrinsic header files in . The patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00145.html You can provide a patch against it to include AMD intrinsic header files. -- H.J.
gcc-4.2-20081105 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20081105 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20081105/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_2-branch revision 141624 You'll find: gcc-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 Complete GCC (includes all of below) gcc-core-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 C front end and core compiler gcc-ada-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 Ada front end and runtime gcc-fortran-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 Fortran front end and runtime gcc-g++-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 C++ front end and runtime gcc-java-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 Java front end and runtime gcc-objc-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2 Objective-C front end and runtime gcc-testsuite-4.2-20081105.tar.bz2The GCC testsuite Diffs from 4.2-20081029 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.2 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.