On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> May I forward your message to the CCC++ CWG?
>
> Certainly, it is a public message, as are all the previous discussions it
> references. I have not tried to engage with the C++ committee dire
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> May I forward your message to the CCC++ CWG?
Certainly, it is a public message, as are all the previous discussions it
references. I have not tried to engage with the C++ committee directly
since I am not a C++ expert and keeping up with C developm
May I forward your message to the CCC++ CWG?
-- Gaby
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > (Not that I am impressed with the incompatibilities of C++0x attributes
> > with existing practice or their ignoring all the hard issues with
> > attributes that have actually come up in GCC implementation experience -
> > along with the proposals ha
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is it possible to allow C++ constant expressions (currently static const,
>> and C++0x constexpr in the future) to be used as __attribute__ parameters
>> in the upcomming version of
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
>
> My plan going forward is as follows (when we are back in stage 1):
>
> * For each difference b
Hello
Is -mfpmath=both for i386 and x86-64 still experimental in gcc 4.3, as
the in the online manual page ?
`sse,387'`sse+387'`both'Attempt to utilize both instruction sets at
once. This effectively double the amount of available registers and on
chips with separate execution units for 387 and S
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 18:44 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
Hi, did you test with Ada enabled? There are some C files in the
Ada compiler and RTS.
Laurent
Bernd Roesch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find this mails here
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg6.html
>
> But i find no answer how i can do same as extern inline and get no problems
> in C99 mode and other modes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01093.html
cheers,
DaveK
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
Great work, thanks!
I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
compiler when
Hi,
I find this mails here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg6.html
But i find no answer how i can do same as extern inline and get no problems
in C99 mode and other modes
I use for longer functions this code
extern __inline long func()
{
}
but when a makefile set -std=c99 then get li
Silvius,
If you want to persue this, you should go back and look at my patches
for subreg level dataflow and start hacking from there. It is not a
big step to start from that and modify it for bits. If you start
from that, it is most likely not much more than a few days work for
the analysis p
>> 1. Dataflow framework to propagate bitwise register properties.
>> (Integrated with the current dataflow framework.)
>> 2. Forward bitwise dataflow analysis: constant bit propagation.
>> 3. Backward bitwise dataflow analysis: dead bit propagation.
>> 4. Target applications: improve dce and see
13 matches
Mail list logo
