Guess I need to run drawterm long enough to grab a backtrace.
> On Oct 18, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
>
> Just a quick note in case anyone else is wondering before updating OS X.
>
> My experience so far has been that drawterm-cocoa has issues when full screen
> which make it
fwiw, p9p's acme has worked fine in full screen for me on all yosemite
previews and the current release.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
> Just a quick note in case anyone else is wondering before updating OS X.
>
> My experience so far has been that drawterm-cocoa has iss
Just a quick note in case anyone else is wondering before updating OS X.
My experience so far has been that drawterm-cocoa has issues when full screen
which make it unstable (it'll work for a while, then drawing gets flickery,
then it crashes). This *seems* to be triggered by switching OS X wor
On 17 October 2014 18:48, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
> Also is there a place explaining the naming conventions?
> I have a hard time understanding what is the difference
> between tcom(), acom(), xcom(), and then there’s complex() …
>
the compiler assumes you've know your Aho and Ullmann either b
There have been many over the years (I think the original papers present
something), but I've not seen anything current enough to be useful. The very
short version: gcc almost always produces faster executables from the same code.
:) Got it :)
On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:04 PM, minux
mailto:minux...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yoann Padioleau
mailto:p...@fb.com>> wrote:
0:int - x was not enough for those balancing(?) and promoting thing?
It's enough for type promotion, but you changed the semantics o
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>
> 0:int - x was not enough for those balancing(?) and promoting thing?
>
It's enough for type promotion, but you changed the semantics of the
program.
0:int - x was not enough for those balancing(?) and promoting thing?
On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Charles Forsyth
mailto:charles.fors...@gmail.com>> wrote:
it's building a tree for (0:int-(0:int-x)) which later transformations will
simplify to x, but having done "the usual arithmetic conve
Hi,
Is there any benchmark results comparing kencc (e.g. 8c) vs gcc, clang, etc?
I’m interested mainly in the speed of the generated code, not so much in the
time it takes to compile something.
On 17 October 2014 18:48, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
> Somehow?
>
> Would be nice to have a comment explaining this “somehow" then
> because it looks tricky.
>
it's building a tree for (0:int-(0:int-x)) which later transformations will
simplify to x, but having done "the usual arithmetic conversion
Somehow?
Would be nice to have a comment explaining this “somehow" then
because it looks tricky.
Also is there a place explaining the naming conventions?
I have a hard time understanding what is the difference
between tcom(), acom(), xcom(), and then there’s complex() …
On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:5
11 matches
Mail list logo
