This is to get a paper trail started.
TODO: Find out if/what LTO issues there may be with user-defined literals.
Ed
On 09/21/2010 06:47 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I'm holding out for rolling back the lexer in some way that won't break
everything and emitting the (unrecognized by cpp ) suffix as a separate
identifier token. I'm thinking the cp_lexer_* routines or maybe a new one in
parser.c would be worth try
On 09/21/2010 07:05 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I had to initialize the variable nested_being_defined to get it to compile
(possible uninitialized warning). I initialized it to false.
Ok, actually it is never used uninitialized, but let's get rid of the warning.
I saw that it was never u
> I had to initialize the variable nested_being_defined to get it to compile
> (possible uninitialized warning). I initialized it to false.
Ok, actually it is never used uninitialized, but let's get rid of the warning.
> It looks like the first two are related. What does an enum look like in
> t
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100921 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100921/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> I'm holding out for rolling back the lexer in some way that won't break
> everything and emitting the (unrecognized by cpp ) suffix as a separate
> identifier token. I'm thinking the cp_lexer_* routines or maybe a new one in
> parser.c would be worth trying. Then the code I have now would ju
Sep 21, 2010 03:56:25 PM, rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 3. The big one: Getting the integer(long long) and float(long double)
>> suffixes that are not used by gcc out of the preprocessor. Then we
>can
>> build the calls.
>
>Just my two cents:
>Add an output parameter to the function "
> 3. The big one: Getting the integer(long long) and float(long double)
> suffixes that are not used by gcc out of the preprocessor. Then we can
> build the calls.
Just my two cents:
Add an output parameter to the function "cpp_classify_number()"
(libcpp/expr.c) to get the user-defined suffix.
It
Resending with correct subject line.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> We're ready for another try.
>
> Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
> group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
> We will be taking bu
We're ready for another try.
Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
We will be taking bugzilla offline on Thursday, September 23, for three
hours starting at 18:00GMT, 11:00PDT to do a final dat
On 09/20/2010 09:58 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Hello all.
This patch tries to implement the C++0x featue "Forward declarations
for enums" aka "opaque enum declarations":
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2764.pdf
Please note that this is a WIP, and as such lacks formatting,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Frédéric Buclin wrote:
> Le 21. 09. 10 01:18, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> > Oops, I didn't realise that changes to the test installation get
> > emailed to gcc-bugs and to the users who reported the bug or are CC'd
> > on it
>
> Yeah, it's a production-ready installation, wit
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> I would like some clarification on the meaning of RTX Costs.
> When optimising for speed I assume they estimate the time at which the
> final generated code is going to take to execute for each rtx.
> When optimising for size it is the estimated number
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Hongtao wrote:
> Thanks very much. But I still want an option to dump the SSA form
> during or after LTO optimizations, such as -fdump-tree-...
-fump-tree-... works for LTO optimizations as well.
> Hongtao
>
>
> On 09/21/10 10:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On T
Thanks very much. But I still want an option to dump the SSA form
during or after LTO optimizations, such as -fdump-tree-...
Hongtao
On 09/21/10 10:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Hongtao wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I'm programming in the LTO phase. How can I dum
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Hongtao wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I'm programming in the LTO phase. How can I dump the SSA representation
> after a optimization of LTO? For example, if I would like to know the
> effect of interprocedural pointer analysis(pass_ipa_pta), how can I dump
> the SSA form
Hi All,
I'm programming in the LTO phase. How can I dump the SSA representation
after a optimization of LTO? For example, if I would like to know the
effect of interprocedural pointer analysis(pass_ipa_pta), how can I dump
the SSA form after the pass?
Thanks,
Hongtao Yu
Purdue University
Hello,
I would like some clarification on the meaning of RTX Costs.
When optimising for speed I assume they estimate the time at which the
final generated code is going to take to execute for each rtx.
When optimising for size it is the estimated number of words that each
rtx will generate in the
On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote:
> The toolchain is broken once again here:
>
> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
> -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt
> -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD
> -I/tmp/build/root/x
> 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=
> You do not need exceptions to implement what I said, just to return a
> value. A boolean would suffice to detect whether you parsed a
> definition.
Sure, I was talking generally.
> The "before whatever" is hardcoded. And tentative parsing is
> thoroughly abused in the parser.
Well, I tried to par
2010/9/21 Frédéric Buclin :
> Le 21. 09. 10 01:18, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
>> Oops, I didn't realise that changes to the test installation get
>> emailed to gcc-bugs and to the users who reported the bug or are CC'd
>> on it
>
> Yeah, it's a production-ready installation, with all features enable
21 matches
Mail list logo
