On 9/3/2012 8:29 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/03/2012 04:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't the only way to proceed. I'd encourage someone wanting to
>>> do this to branch GCC and implement a rough cut of the feature. That
>>
>> That woul
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj schrieb:
On a 64 bit machine, executing
$ make check RUNTESTFLAGS="avr-torture.exp=builtins-1.c
--target_board=atxmega128a1"
causes virtual memory allocation failure and/or large scale machine
slowdown, with cc1 using up gobs (>35G) virtual memory.
I tracked this down t
On a 64 bit machine, executing
$ make check RUNTESTFLAGS="avr-torture.exp=builtins-1.c
--target_board=atxmega128a1"
causes virtual memory allocation failure and/or large scale machine
slowdown, with cc1 using up gobs (>35G) virtual memory.
I tracked this down to
void delay_4 (void) { __builti
On 31/08/2012, at 8:08 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Dunno if alpha is going to be the only glibc port to encounter this, if it
> should be considered a gcc bug, or what.
For problems like this it is very helpful to see the post-processed source of
the file with macro definitions, i.e., output
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Florian Weimer wrote:
> its implementation costs. Part of that is related to the reluctance to use
> fat pointers (although they are implicit in some places, such as the return
> value of array_slice). Code can write to length parameters and struct fields
While I like fat po
On 09/03/2012 04:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> This isn't the only way to proceed. I'd encourage someone wanting to
>> do this to branch GCC and implement a rough cut of the feature. That
>
> That would very likely be "build one to throw away" - fe
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
> This isn't the only way to proceed. I'd encourage someone wanting to
> do this to branch GCC and implement a rough cut of the feature. That
That would very likely be "build one to throw away" - features built
without a clear definition of how they inte
On 08/31/2012 11:55 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The proposal,
"Safe arrays amd pointers for C, round 2", is here:
http://www.animats.com/papers/languages/safearraysforc41.pdf
The typedef at the top of page 9 is incorrect or needs an explanation.
At the top of page 13, the example references an "it
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> To take full advantage of the conversion to C++, we will need to use
I'm not sure what "full advantage" of single-inheritance vs. composition is.
> single inheritance in some of our garbage collected structures. To
> that end, we need to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Deepti Sharma
wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>> Richard Guenther
>> Sent: 31 May 2012 14:27
>> To: Mohamed Shafi
>> Cc: GCC; d...@redhat.com; Ahmed Sherif
>> Subject
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for such a stupid question, but assuming that the GCC trunk (e.g. svn
>> rev 190745)
>> did already switch (during my holidays, so I did not follow that) to C++
>
Howdy,
Name of mine is Dwana - naughty chick with a lot mad ideas in head!
What I am searching for here? You know, I'm not sure about this question!
Probably just interesting dialogue with men, maybe flirt, maybe sex or maybe
some stuff like serious relations if we are lucky. Who knows, maybe u
On 09/01/2012 05:09 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Adding references to C would likely have consequences throughout the
> entire language standard. Producing the proper specification for this
> would be a large amount of work for someone with extensive expertise in
> the standard (and in the C++
13 matches
Mail list logo
