Hi,
A colleague noticed that we were not vectorizing loops that had end of
loop computations that were MIN type operations that weren't expressed
in the form of a typical min operation. A transform from (i < x ) &&
( i < y) to ( i < min (x, y)) is only something that we should do in
these situat
How does the compiler handle an in-class function definition?
Example:
// File A.h
class A {
int foo(void) { return x; }
int bar(void);
int x;
}
// File A.cc
#include "A.h"
int A::bar(void) { ... }
How is "foo()" represented in the AST when parsing A.cc?
Thanks,
rick
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20120421 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20120421/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Quoting "H.J. Lu" :
Putting our own foo in a section with a special prefix in section name,
like .secondary_*, works with linker support. But it isn't very reliable.
In what way is requiring linker support for STB_GNU_SECONDARY more reliable
than requiring linker support for .secondary_* sect
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>> Even better, you could use symbolic tags, and have the linker script
>>> assign precedence values to these tags.
>>
>>
>> It won't help us.
>
>
> Maybe it wouldn't buy you more than the secondary symbols right now, but
> it would give a lo
