On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> I do think that the fact that some other big free software starts by
> explaining how to
> manage their memory is significant.
Storage management is important. However, I believe it is a mistake to
focus only on that or to start th
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:16:03 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>
> > However, I don't often see the people arguing against Ggc talking about the
> > difficulties
> > for GCC newscomers to dive inside GCC and be able to propose code.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> However, I don't often see the people arguing against Ggc talking about the
> difficulties
> for GCC newscomers to dive inside GCC and be able to propose code.
From my experience, the difficulty for newcomer to get into GCC source
c
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> If you want to extend, alter or improve GCC source code in a garbage
> collected language,
> please consider trying MELT (see http://gcc-melt.org/ for more). MELT is a
> domain
> specific language (garbage collected, lispy syntax,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> There is no reason to assume or to believe that people who argue for
> less GC aren't familiar with GC -- a regrettably not so uncommon
> jugemental mistake.
>
> In fact, the book you mention has been part of my essential books since
> t
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:45:58 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> There is no reason to assume or to believe that people who argue for
> less GC aren't familiar with GC -- a regrettably not so uncommon
> jugemental mistake.
However, I don't often see the people arguing against Ggc talking about
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> I recommend people interested in automatic dynamic memory management
> to read this book:
> Garbage Collection: Algorithms For Automatic Dynamic Memory
> Management(Richard Jones,1996)
There is no reason to assume or to believe that people wh
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:22:41 +0800
Chiheng Xu wrote:
>
> Basile, I completely agree with you.
>
> I recommend people interested in automatic dynamic memory management
> to read this book:
> Garbage Collection: Algorithms For Automatic Dynamic Memory
> Management(Richard Jones,1996)
>
> The impo
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> Historically, it was the opposite: I do recognize the importance of garbage
> collection,
> and because of the importance of Ggc in GCC, I designed MELT garbage
> collection above Ggc.
>
>
> My strong belief is that any *big* compi
On 10/18/2011 09:57 AM, Yvan ROUX wrote:
int main() {
const int Ci = 0;
const int&rCi = Ci;
if (!(&Ci ==&rCi)) return 1;
return 0;
}
The program has the expected behaviour if you use a 4.5 gcc or the trunk, but
if you compile it with a 4.6 one (even with the b
>From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>Richard Henderson
>On 10/17/2011 03:50 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>...
>> (for example, it would be ok to output negqi2, xorqi3 and
>> addc_internal since xorqi3 only sets N and Z, not the Carry bit)
>
>For that you'd have
On 10/17/2011 03:50 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To negate a double word (HImode) register, I used to take the instruction all
> the way to assembly generation and then expand into three assembly
> instructions like so:
> xor %t0, # ; invert bits in top word of op0
> nadd %b0, #0
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111018 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111018/
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
On 18 October 2011 21:52, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> I actually meant _ptr template C++ class.
>
> I don't know them much. Any pointers to a tutorial to these smart or whatever
> you call
> them _ptr-s?
You could try http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:42:34 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>
> > However, I don't know very well auto_ptr.
>
> why do you believe you have to focus on auto_ptr?
I actually meant _ptr template C++ class.
I don't know them much.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> So I thought that
> delete (p) p;
> actually called p->~C()
>
No. This is one of the reasons why you should not read too much
into "manual storage management". Most of the time, you don't have
to say delete. And if you do, think
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:53:07 +0100
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 18 October 2011 16:12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, with C++, the destructor routine is really what C++ calls a
>> > destructor, e.g
>> > somethi
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Before we introduced garbage collection, gcc used pools (well, obstacks),
When I started in 1997, obstack was still there and it isn't that long ago, so
things do move fast -- for a large software like GCC.
> but there were severe
> pro
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> However, I don't know very well auto_ptr.
why do you believe you have to focus on auto_ptr?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> And in my perception, auto_ptr are a poor man's way of implementing a garbage
> collection,
> it is not a way to avoid it.
I saw several mentions of smart pointers, and no mention -- except in
this message I am replying to -- of au
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:39:03 +0100
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 3) the placement delete in is a no-op
I thought every delete in C++ calls the destructor, and that the placement
delete does
only that. I mean that a delete statement does two things: invoke the
destructor first,
and then does whateve
On 18 October 2011 19:03, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:53:07 +0100
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 18 October 2011 16:12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, with C++, the destructor routine is really what C++ calls a
>> > destructor, e.g
>> > something like
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> I think a better approach here is likely to be a reference counted
> shared_ptr for the
> most general case. It's true that it works poorly with cycles, but
> gcc data structures
> are only occasionally cyclical.
>
> Also, I think t
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:53:07 +0100
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 16:12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >
> > Of course, with C++, the destructor routine is really what C++ calls a
> > destructor, e.g
> > something like extern "C" void my_destructor_for_class_C (class C* p)
> > { del
On 18 October 2011 16:12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> Of course, with C++, the destructor routine is really what C++ calls a
> destructor, e.g
> something like extern "C" void my_destructor_for_class_C (class C* p)
> { delete (p) p; // call the placement version of operator delete, from
> C+
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:36:08 -0700
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Still, I find strange that while some very smart & nice GCC guys want to
>> > get rid of G
On 18 October 2011 18:41, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> However, I don't know very well auto_ptr. Could you explain to use how do
> they deal with
> *circular* memory references (perhaps by taking as examples code inside
> GCC).
> My feeling is that auto_ptr is not able to deal with them,
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:36:08 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
> >
> > Still, I find strange that while some very smart & nice GCC guys want to
> > get rid of Ggc,
> > no patch made into the trunk towards that goal (which I Basile di
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> Still, I find strange that while some very smart & nice GCC guys want to get
> rid of Ggc,
> no patch made into the trunk towards that goal (which I Basile dislike and
> don't share,
> so don't expect me Basile to work on this.).
I got you.
Paulo J. Matos-3 wrote:
>
> On 18/10/11 06:12, vikramsp wrote:
>>
>> In my .md file there is an insn
>> (define_insn abssf2
>>
>>
>> (clobber (match_scratch 2 ""))
>>
>> the %2 register is allocated as r0 in the real code.
>> My problem is that i want o
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:35:16 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> [...] I understand that you want to take advantage
> of the gcc garbage collector for the MELT plugin. However, in my ideal
> world you should be planning for the MELT plugin to take over garbage
> collection entirely, rather than rely
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>
> But [independently of MELT] I don't believe that GCC will be able to return
> to manual
> memory management. There have been valid reasons (long time ago) to implement
> Ggc, and as
> far as I understand GCC, I don't see these reas
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:35:16 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Basile Starynkevitch writes:
>
> > I would like to add destroyable objects into Ggc (the GCC garbage
> > collector, see files
> > gcc/ggc*.[ch]).
>
> I think this type of thing is conventionally called a "finalizer".
Yes, if you li
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I think this type of thing is conventionally called a "finalizer".
>
> I'm ambivalent leaning to negative to adding this feature to the gcc
> garbage collector. In the long run I would like to use the gcc garbage
> collector less and le
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> I would like to add destroyable objects into Ggc (the GCC garbage collector,
> see files
> gcc/ggc*.[ch]).
I think this type of thing is conventionally called a "finalizer".
I'm ambivalent leaning to negative to adding this feature to the gcc
garbage collector.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:19:56 +0200
Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Basile,
>
> > I would like to add destroyable objects into Ggc (the GCC garbage
> > collector, see files
> > gcc/ggc*.[ch]).
> >
> > The main motivation is to permit C++ objects to be garbage collected (I
> > discussed that
> > briefl
Hi Basile,
I would like to add destroyable objects into Ggc (the GCC garbage collector,
see files
gcc/ggc*.[ch]).
The main motivation is to permit C++ objects to be garbage collected (I
discussed that
briefly in the Gcc meeting at Google in London): adding destroyable object is a
prerequisite
Hello All,
I would like to add destroyable objects into Ggc (the GCC garbage collector,
see files
gcc/ggc*.[ch]).
The main motivation is to permit C++ objects to be garbage collected (I
discussed that
briefly in the Gcc meeting at Google in London): adding destroyable object is a
prerequisite f
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> dump -H libstdc++.so.6
>
> ./powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.0.0/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so.6.orig:
>
> ***Loader Section***
> Loader Header Information
> VERSION# #SYMtableENT #RELOCent
Hi,
I have the small program below, which check the binding of a reference :
int main() {
const int Ci = 0;
const int &rCi = Ci;
if (!(&Ci == &rCi)) return 1;
return 0;
}
If my understanding of the standard (8.5.3) is correct, the reference is
an lvalue (rCi), the
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> Thanks for the help Ian. The function get_callee_fndecl takes in a tree and
> returns a tree. I would like to get the function name from the RTX. Is there
> a function for this purpose?
Please don't top-post. Thanks.
Sorry about that, I overlooked that you wanted
Thanks for the help Ian. The function get_callee_fndecl takes in a tree and
returns a tree. I would like to get the function name from the RTX. Is there a
function for this purpose?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
From: Ian Lance Taylor [i...@google.com]
Sent
Quoting Hans-Peter Nilsson :
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting "Paulo J. Matos" :
> My addition instruction sets all the flags. So I have:
This is annoying, but can be handled. Been there, done that.
dse.c needs a small patch, which I intend to submit sometime in the future
On 18/10/11 06:12, vikramsp wrote:
In my .md file there is an insn
(define_insn abssf2
(clobber (match_scratch 2 ""))
the %2 register is allocated as r0 in the real code.
My problem is that i want other than r0 to be allocated
for operand 2.
Please help how to do t
On 17/10/11 17:20, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
addc_internal looks like:
(define_insn "addc_internal"
[(set (match_operand:QI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=c")
(plus:QI
(plus:QI
(ltu:QI (reg:CC RCC) (const_int 0))
On 18 October 2011 09:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 03:05, Perry Smith wrote:
>> I've discovered an issue which I can't believe I'm the first to bump
>> in to.
>
> Isn't this covered by these FAQs?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.h
On 18 October 2011 03:05, Perry Smith wrote:
> I've discovered an issue which I can't believe I'm the first to bump
> in to.
Isn't this covered by these FAQs?
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.html#faq.how_to_set_paths
47 matches
Mail list logo
