On 29 July 2016 at 20:01, Warren D Smith wrote:
>> Given a pointer to an array of nibbles and a length, how do I iterate
>> through the array?
>
> for(i=0; i
> --correction, that was for an array of packed bools. For nybbles,
> bitsizeof(a)/4. There are various games one can play, and quibbles one
> Given a pointer to an array of nibbles and a length, how do I iterate
> through the array?
for(i=0; ihttp://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
On 7/29/16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Let's imagine we have a 4-bit type, called nibble.
>
> sizeof(nibble) == 1, because you can't have an object with a smaller size.
>
> nibble a[2];
> sizeof(a) == 1;
>
> Because otherwise there isn't much benefit.
--bitsizeof() is required.
> So now we have a
Let's imagine we have a 4-bit type, called nibble.
sizeof(nibble) == 1, because you can't have an object with a smaller size.
nibble a[2];
sizeof(a) == 1;
Because otherwise there isn't much benefit.
So now we have a type which violates one of the core rules of the type
system. sizeof(nibble[2 *
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
>> >> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
>>
>> libiber
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
> >> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
>
> libiberty cannot be replaced completely, because there are bits that
On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
>> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
libiberty cannot be replaced completely, because there are bits that
do not even exist in gnulib. And given the time frame, I d
> Booleans are very useful - they turn up all over the place in programming.
>
> Nibbles, on the other hand, are almost totally useless. There are very,
> very few situations where you need to store a number that is within the
> range 0 .. 15, and are so tightly constrained for space that you can'
On 07/29/2016 05:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/29/2016 07:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
res
On 07/29/2016 05:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> BTW, does this libiberty replacement project also fix binutils and gdb, or
> will these other libiberty users require independent patches for their
> respective projects?
GDB is already making extensive use of gnulib (I don't know to what extent
it st
On 07/29/2016 07:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful after 15 years of
divergence.
The current gl
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:05:13AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> There might still problems linger around if hard-regs are used:
>
> Suppose we set the reg in DImode and then get_last_value is called for the
> same reg in SImode. Using the DI value might be wrong, e.g. if it is used
> to com
On 29/07/16 10:25, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
> Some processor architectures do support bitwise access to memory, eg. ARM
> Cortex-M and 8051 (by ARM called bit-banding).
> In these architectures a single bit can somewhat be addressable, but only as
> an 'aliased' memory region for another memo
Thanks,
Prasad
On 29 July 2016 at 12:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Thanks,
>> Prasad
>>
>>
>> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Ri
On 29.07.2016 09:47, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Johann,
I tested a variant of your patch, building Linux for 32 different
(sub-)architectures; surprisingly (to me) there are no regressions
at all.
I am not so surprised because most backends don't make such an intense use of
hard-regs like t
Some processor architectures do support bitwise access to memory, eg. ARM
Cortex-M and 8051 (by ARM called bit-banding).
In these architectures a single bit can somewhat be addressable, but only as an
'aliased' memory region for another memory address.
I noticed that Keil ARMCC compiler now seem
Hi Johann,
I tested a variant of your patch, building Linux for 32 different
(sub-)architectures; surprisingly (to me) there are no regressions
at all.
Do you want to send it to gcc-patches?
Segher
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index 77e0d2b..750bf83 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.c
++
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
>
> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarn
Thanks,
Prasad
On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
