On 11/26/12 12:46, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I wonder if "kludgy fixups" refers to the dummy-instruction solution I
> mentioned above. The complete dependence graph is a myth. You cannot have a
> complete dependence graph for a function -- scheduler works on DAG regions
> (and I doubt it will e
On 27/11/2012, at 4:51 PM, ETANI NORIKO wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
>
> I am researching the status quo of embedded Linux and find out your website
> of "Embedded Linux Conference 2013". We are looking for the engineer at a
> distributor side in order to consult our implementation issues and improve
Richard,
I spent a good part of the afternoon talking to Mike about this. He is
on the c++ standards committee and is a much more seasoned c++
programmer than I am.
He convinced me that with a large amount of engineering and c++
"foolishness" that it was indeed possible to get your proposal
On Nov 26, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Bill Beech (NJ7P) wrote:
> I have run into a problem with both 4.6.1 and 4.7.2 of the gcc compiler
> handling type short. Sizeof(unsigned short) returns a length of 2 as
> expected, but when I use a union of a character buffer and some fields
> including a unsigne
I have run into a problem with both 4.6.1 and 4.7.2 of the gcc compiler
handling type short. Sizeof(unsigned short) returns a length of 2 as
expected, but when I use a union of a character buffer and some fields
including a unsigned short the value returned is 2 bytes but the buffer
pointer is
On 11/23/12, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 01:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > I have found that tree-flow.h implements iteration over htab_t,
> > while there is no current facility to do that with hash_table.
> > Unfortunately, the specific form does not match the standard C++
> > approac
On 27/11/2012, at 4:34 AM, Greg McGary wrote:
> On 11/25/12 23:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>> You essentially need a fix-up pass just before the end of compilation
>> (machine-dependent reorg, if memory serves me right) to space instructions
>> consuming values from CPRs from the CALL_INSNS that s
> Marketing loves high numbers after all!
If you truly think this way, we're going to have to revoke your hacker's
license ;-)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say the most pragmatic solution is to stick with gengtype but
>>> make it more dependent on annotations (thus,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
On 11/26/2012 10:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email.
On 11/25/12 23:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> You essentially need a fix-up pass just before the end of compilation
> (machine-dependent reorg, if memory serves me right) to space instructions
> consuming values from CPRs from the CALL_INSNS that set those CPRs. I.e.,
> for the 99% of compilation
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> In graphds.h, struct graph has a field "htab_t indices".
> As near as I can tell, it is completely unused. It builds
> and tests fine with the field #if'd out.
>
> Shall I remove the field?
Sure. Please make sure to have graphite enabled
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
there is
This is the beta release of binutils 2.23.51.0.6 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2012 1123 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12:17PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > In this day and age of rich-text capable mailers, restricting postings
> > to be text-only seems quaint and antiquated. Are there any hard
> > requirements that force u
16 matches
Mail list logo