Hi,
"g++ -Wall -Wextra ..." should flag a warning on the following code
but does not.
std::pair
get_XYZ_data()
{
XYZ result;
return std::pair(1, result);
}
This is a violation of Scott Meyer's "Effective C++" Item 21 "Don't
try to return a reference when you must return an object." GCC
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > asm ("scall" : : "asm("r0")" (10), ...)
> Maybe it would be possible to implement this while keeping the syntax
> of existing code by (re-)defining the semantics of register asm to
> basically say that:
>
> If a variable X is
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> In xalancbmk, with the partition option, most of object files have
>> nonzero size cold sections generated. The text size of the binary is
>> increased to 3572728 bytes from 3466790 bytes. Profiling the program
>> using the training input show
> In xalancbmk, with the partition option, most of object files have
> nonzero size cold sections generated. The text size of the binary is
> increased to 3572728 bytes from 3466790 bytes. Profiling the program
> using the training input shows the following differences. With
> partitioning, number
> On 07/25/2011 06:42 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> FYI the performance impact of this option with SPEC06 (built with
>> google_46 compiler and measured on a core2 box). The base line number
>> is FDO, and ref number is FDO + reorder_with_partitioning.
>>
>> xalancbmk improves> 3.5%
>> perlben
Hi,
> The worst part is that test coverage for this feature is
> extremely poor. It's very difficult to tell if any cleanup
> in this area is likely to introduce more bugs than it fixes.
>
> After 3 days fighting with this code, I had a bit of a
> cathartic whine on IRC. I got two votes to just
Scanning through the profile data you provided -- test functions such
as test_constant ...>
completely disappeared in 4.1's profile which means they are inlined
by gcc4.1. They exist in 4.6's profile. For the unsigned short case
where neither version inlines the call, 4.6 version is much faster.
D
I wanted to let everyone know that the planning for the 2011 GCC and GNU
Toolchain Developers' Summit is well underway and I hope to have the
dates and locations confirmed any time now. The aim is the same timing
as 2010 in the 3rd week of October.
Start thinking about the topics you're most
On 08/03/2011 07:02 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Reserved registers are a no-go (like %esp), either global or local.
Local register variables referring to anything in fixed_regs
are trivial to handle -- continue to treat them exactly as we
currently do. They won't be clobbered by random code mov
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
Yes, that's reasonable. As I understand the docs, in code like
void foo ()
{
register int var asm ("r1") = 10;
asm (";; use r
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> > Yes, that's reasonable. As I understand the docs, in code like
>> >
>> > void foo ()
>> > {
>> > register int var asm ("r1") = 10;
>> > asm (";; use r1");
>> > }
>> >
>> > there is
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Yes, that's reasonable. As I understand the docs, in code like
> >
> > void foo ()
> > {
> > register int var asm ("r1") = 10;
> > asm (";; use r1");
> > }
> >
> > there is nothing that connects var to the asm and assuming that
> > r1 holds
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Guenther writes:
> I suggest to amend the documentation for local call-clobbered register
> variables to sa
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
I suggest to amend the documentation for local call-clobbered register
variables to say that the only valid sequence using them is from a
non-inli
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Richard Guenther writes:
> >> I suggest to amend the documentation for local call-clobbered register
> >> variables to say that the only valid sequence using them is from a
> >> non-inlinable function that conta
Le 26. 01. 11 17:04, Frank Ch. Eigler a écrit :
Can't locate mro.pm in @INC
>
> This may be fixed now, with a hand-made dummy mro.pm file.
I think I know what's wrong. I will paste what I wrote at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675633#c2:
email_in.pl requires Email::Reply whic
16 matches
Mail list logo
