Hi,
I am investigating the possibilities of using decimal floating point
arithmetic with gcc (on Linux / x86_64 to be explicit).
Are _Decimal32/_Decimal64/_Decimal128 available as builtin types without
further action or do i as a DFP consumer have to issue the correspondent
typedef/float/attribute
Hi,
Posted this query (attached below) to gcc-help. Did not get response yet
so posting it here. Appreciate your help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-06/msg00156.html (Copy attached below).
Thanks,
Kannan
-Original Message-
From: Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan
Sent: Tuesday, J
Yes, my topic sounds crazy huh? But you guys made it possible when you
started optimizing out constant function pointers. (Thank you!!) This
didn't mature to "full power" until 4.6.? (works in 4.6.2, not sure
about earlier 4.6). Now that you can populate a struct with const
pointers to inline fun
On 06/18/12, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> ... I suppose that for 4.8.0 we really want to bump the ABI, for many other
> reasons too, and be done with it.
>
> Paolo.
Would this bump include everything? Such as rebasing std::ios_base::failure
from std::exception to std::system_error and everything
> But I am still missing something, why is the performance so different?
> Code layout putting the constructors' body in the reverse order they
> are called?
Yes, as I understand it. Cache and TLB prefetching works better when
code executes from lower to higher addresses than when executing from
h
> This has a long and complicated history. I tried to explain some of that here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-12/msg01493.html
>
> I wasn't part of the GCC community at the time, but I think that
> .ctors was originally used instead of .init or .init_array precisely
> because the order
>> Furthermore, if you're working in chromium, you should be aware that
>> the new behavior is exactly what the Chrome developers are arguing
>> for, as it makes the startup faster. It sounds to me like you're
>> working at cross purposes with the other developers on that project.
>
> Ah, perhaps t
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> So this is not as bad as I was expecting (old programs still work),
>> but it is still a somewhat annoying ABI change to handle. I think we
>> can add support for this in clang in 3 ways:
>>
>> 1) Require new linkers when using gcc 4.7 libra
[Re-sending this to try to got through to the GCC mailing list...
Sorry for the duplication to others... My reply is at the bottom]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola
> wrote:
>>
>> > The GNU linker has support to merge
> So this is not as bad as I was expecting (old programs still work),
> but it is still a somewhat annoying ABI change to handle. I think we
> can add support for this in clang in 3 ways:
>
> 1) Require new linkers when using gcc 4.7 libraries.
> 2) Ship our own versions of crtbeginS.o (and similar
> The GNU linker has support to merge .ctor's into init_array. Does the
> gold linker have the same feature? This seems more like the real fix
> rather than just hacking around the issue.
Recent version have it. I found the bug when using gold 2.21 which
doesn't. What seems to happen is:
* In a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Rafael Espíndola
wrote:
> ccing the gcc list and Cary Coutant.
>
> The issue comes from gcc pr46770. Cary, have you tried implementing
> the --reverse-init-array option? Does it solve the problems you were
> seeing?
>
> Can libstdc++ be fixed to work with the iostr
Hi,
On 06/18/2012 06:01 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said
ealier (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the
conclusion of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a myste
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said
> ealier (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the
> conclusion of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a mystery.
The quoted part suggested switching std
ccing the gcc list and Cary Coutant.
The issue comes from gcc pr46770. Cary, have you tried implementing
the --reverse-init-array option? Does it solve the problems you were
seeing?
Can libstdc++ be fixed to work with the iostream static constructors
being in .ctor or .init_array? Would you be in
On 06/18/2012 07:16 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
o
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
>> avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
>> of how to never change the soname aga
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is
reasonably possible with sy
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The problems arise when user code that uses the "inline-only" code is
> linked to other user-code that has a different definition of that
> inline-only code.
Indeed.
A related question is whether for GCC-4.8 we should still continue
to c
On 18 June 2012 08:52, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 10:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>>
>> Whether or not this particular incompatibility was intended or not, the
>> point remains. You cannot say that GCC devs are taking the C++11 binary
>> incompatibility issue seriously while:
>> a) th
On 06/15/2012 10:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
Whether or not this particular incompatibility was intended or not, the
point remains. You cannot say that GCC devs are taking the C++11 binary
incompatibility issue seriously while:
a) there exist serious ABI incompatibilities between the modes.
b) t
21 matches
Mail list logo
