On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Everyone
> I have a question regarding a DejaGNU execution tests for C++. For C
> I used several C-torture routines (e.g. c-torture-execute) to add execution
> tests into the testsuite. I am not able to find a similar set of
Hello Everyone
I have a question regarding a DejaGNU execution tests for C++. For C I
used several C-torture routines (e.g. c-torture-execute) to add execution tests
into the testsuite. I am not able to find a similar set of routine to use in
C++. Can someone please point me if similar f
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120817 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120817/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 8/13/12, Elmar Krieger wrote:
> Good news, and especially the -ftime-report trick was highly useful.
>
> For example, I got a huge slowdown also with this compiler:
>
> gcc44 (GCC) 4.4.6 20110731 (Red Hat 4.4.6-3)
> Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> which spends all its time
On 17 August 2012 08:25, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>> Compiling the following code with D defined works. Leave it out (and
>> remove the extra dimension which has no influence on the data layout
>> etc) and it compiles. Is this correct? Why w
Dear SC members,
I used to maintain the picochip port of GCC, but I have not been
active on the picochip port over the last 8 months. This is unlikely
to change in the future, so I would like my name to be removed from
the maintainers list as picochip maintainer. I am still actively
working on GCC,
On 15 August 2012 03:05, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> I have committed rev 190402, which merges the cxx-conversion branch into
> trunk. Thanks to everyone who provided review feedback and tested the
> branch.
>
> While we have tested the changes pretty thoroughly, we will monitor results
> from teste
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Compiling the following code with D defined works. Leave it out (and
> remove the extra dimension which has no influence on the data layout
> etc) and it compiles. Is this correct? Why wouldn't a simple use of
> an array parameter be suf
Compiling the following code with D defined works. Leave it out (and
remove the extra dimension which has no influence on the data layout
etc) and it compiles. Is this correct? Why wouldn't a simple use of
an array parameter be sufficient?
#ifdef D
#define XD [1]
#define XR [0]
#define XBB {
