Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Since it is possible to use the 0b prefix to specify a binary
>number in GCC/C++, will there be any resistance to add %b format
>specifier to the printf family format strings?
>
> You can do that yourself by using the hook facility for printf, see
> (libc) Custo
Hi folks.
While optimizing some of my code I replaced powf (x, 1.5f) with x *
sqrt(x). Out of couriosity I checked if GCC does this optimization and
found it in the code. It's in expand_builtin_pow in the file builtin.c
(gcc 4.3.1 source).
However, GCC does not apply this optimization for a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Unfortunately we need more than that: we need a signed piece of paper
disclaiming copyright.
This is something I stumbled over some month ago when I studied the
submission rules:
I am now a lawyer, but as far as I know in my country (germany) it is
not possible to
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:23, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
It currently is broken on many platforms. Why not remove it now? What is
the purpose of keeping a pass that does not work correctly and developers
cannot use?
As
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR
and link GCC
ings. That would make compiling GCC on a naked cygwin
installation *much* easier.
Cheers,
Nils Pipenbrinck
Hi folks.
Maybe the one or another remembers the post I've wrote more than a month
ago. I was (and still am) new to the GCC codebase and had the evil plan
to add an optimization pass to do byte permutations (capturing all
home-brewed bswap things and all the other 23 possible byte-permutations
be the best place
in gcc to add an automatic byteswap detection?
I don't know if I'll ever finish the experiment and submit a patch. The
code-base *huge* and scary, but I'd at least like to give it a try.
Nils Pipenbrinck
> If you know of a non-GCC compiler that optimizes away
> the test (so that the function always returns 0), please
> post here, and let me know the name, version number,
> command-line options, etc. you used to demonstrate that.
The lovely TI Code Composer Studio compiler does the same optimiza
Hi there. I'm a long mailing-list lurker, and I use GCC quite a bit for
embedded software development.
Most of the stuff I write is performance critical, and I always find
myself in the same situation: I spend counter less hours to unswitch
loops by hand because the built-in loop unswitcher is
10 matches
Mail list logo
