On 28 December 2014 at 00:08, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 26-12-2014 1:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
>>> language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) whi
On 26-12-2014 1:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
It should probably be https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status.html
On 27 December 2014 at 19:17, Jonathan Adamczewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
>> > language feature-complet
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
> > language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
>
> It should probably be https:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Is it faster? Have you measured it? Is it so much faster that it's critical
> for your
> application?
Well, I couldn't really leave this be: I did a little bit of
benchmarking using my company's proprietary benchmarking library,
which I
> On Dec 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 27/12/14 18:04, Matt Godbolt wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> if you don't need an atomic access, why do you care that it uses a
>>> read-modify-write instruction instead of three instructions? Is i
On 27/12/14 18:04, Matt Godbolt wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> if you don't need an atomic access, why do you care that it uses a
>> read-modify-write instruction instead of three instructions? Is it
>> faster? Have you measured it? Is it so much faster that
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 27/12/14 00:02, Matt Godbolt wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 26/12/14 22:49, Matt Godbolt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Why?
>>
>> Performance.
>
> Okay, but th
On Sat, 2014-12-27 at 09:51 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 27/12/14 16:02, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In the case of volatile variables, the external interface in
> >> question is the one at the point where that address is implemented
On 27/12/14 00:02, Matt Godbolt wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 26/12/14 22:49, Matt Godbolt wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> Thanks. I realise I was unclear in my original email. I'm really
>>> looking for a way to say "do
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 27/12/14 16:02, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>
>> In the case of volatile variables, the external interface in
>> question is the one at the point where that address is implemented —
>> a memory cell, or memory mapped I/O device on a bus.
On 27/12/14 16:02, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>
>> On Dec 26, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 26/12/14 22:49, Matt Godbolt wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 26/12/14 20:32, Matt Godbolt wrote:
> Is there a reason why (in principal) the vo
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 26/12/14 22:49, Matt Godbolt wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 26/12/14 20:32, Matt Godbolt wrote:
Is there a reason why (in principal) the volatile increment can't be
made into a single add?
Oops. Hit the wrong button. I will check it in.
Thanks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: PATC: PR target/64409: ICE building Mesa 10.4.0 for x32 ABI
To: "H.J. Lu"
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On
14 matches
Mail list logo
