"Peng Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I should have said in reply to your last message: this is the wrong
mailing list for this question. Please take any followups to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
> Isn't ANSI C++ a subset of POSIX C++. Why do I need to specify
> _POSIX_SOURCE, _POSIX_C_SOURCE and
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peng Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is an options -ansi to make g++ ANSI compatible. I'm wondering
>> if there is an option to make g++ POSIX compatible. Or g++ is already
>> POSIX compatible without an opti
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peng Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is an options -ansi to make g++ ANSI compatible. I'm wondering
>> if there is an option to make g++ POSIX compatible. Or g++ is already
>> POSIX compatible without an opti
"Peng Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is an options -ansi to make g++ ANSI compatible. I'm wondering
> if there is an option to make g++ POSIX compatible. Or g++ is already
> POSIX compatible without an option?
POSIX itself specifies features macros which you may define to compile
your so
I have merged mainline @137837 into the branch.
Jakub reports:
I don't have a testsuite_summary log from after the PRE commit but
before this merge, only summary from yesterday. There are many tests
fixed (most of them likely because of the PRE merge) and several
Hi,
There is an options -ansi to make g++ ANSI compatible. I'm wondering
if there is an option to make g++ POSIX compatible. Or g++ is already
POSIX compatible without an option?
Thanks,
Peng
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Hi Silvius Rus and Lixia Liu! Thanks for posting this, asking for
advice, and being willing to help improve libstdc++!
Goal: Give performance improvement advice based on analysis of
dynamic STL usage.
Your project sounds intriguing, and something that could pot
Doug Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In particular, design. The using bits seem pretty straightforward. It
would be nice if you could provide some detail in terms of scope (what
are the algorithms or data structures you intend to ins
Hi, I've noticed that the Ada section of the following web page is
somewhat outdated:
http://gcc.gnu.org/readings.html
For example, Ada Core Technologies is now named AdaCore, and there is
much more recent version of the book describing the internals of the
run-time by the same author (also des
Steve Perkins wrote:
>> You couldn't do that. However, libgcj carries with it an exception that
>> allows you to link non-GPL code. Look at the license for more details.
>
>Can you perhaps elaborate? No offense, but I think the original
> message makes clear that "looking at the licenses for
> You couldn't do that. However, libgcj carries with it an exception that
> allows you to link non-GPL code. Look at the license for more details.
Can you perhaps elaborate? No offense, but I think the original
message makes clear that "looking at the licenses for more details" was
the firs
Hi Richard,
Still looking into this issue.
Our current understanding is that our initial bug was indirectly
caused by the Ada front-end setting TREE_STATIC on a DECL_EXTERNAL
constant, which it shouldn't do.
The straightforward fix to that uncovered corner issues with the
way we set DECL_CONTEXT
Steve Perkins wrote:
>I have a question about using GCC/GCJ to compile a Java application
> which uses the SWT framework for its GUI, and whether this locks you in
> or out of any licensing options. I apologize in advance if this
> question is somewhat off-topic... I searched "gnu.org" for a m
> This ties in with the main question I had... typically, a
> profiling layer is used on larger inputs where it is important that the
> profiling code itself have very low overhead. Piggybacking on
> the debug mode is a definite performance-killer, so I hope that
> the profiling version of the libr
Hi Joel,
I ran into a similar problem moving from 4.2.2 to 4.3.0. I looked a bit
into it and found that 4.3 compiler inlines more aggressively than 4.2.x
compiler. The reason was that the following two lines were removed from
opts.c
set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5);
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are failing to build libjava on PPC64 because of this:
> >
> > /home/dnovillo/perf/sbox/tuples/local.ppc64/bld/./gcc/xgcc -shared
> > -libgcc -B/home/dnovillo/perf/sbox/tupl
2008/7/15 Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>
>> I agree with you, but what about when there are still caller save
>> register are available and there are no register restrictions for any
>> instructions? In my case i find that GCC has used only the argument
>> registers, stack poin
>
> I agree with you, but what about when there are still caller save
> register are available and there are no register restrictions for any
> instructions? In my case i find that GCC has used only the argument
> registers, stack pointer and callee saved registers. So out of the 16
> available
2008/7/15 Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Mohamed,
>
>
>
> Why not ? Callee save registers are after all registers and the split
> is in the ABI's head (so to speak). So GCC is well within its right to
> use callee save registers. In fact if you were in a leaf function that
> did not
19 matches
Mail list logo
