On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:08 -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
> Most of my compilations (on Linux, at least) use close
> to 100% of CPU. Adding more overhead for threading and
> communication/synchronization can only hurt.
In my daily work, I take processes that run 100% and make them use 100%
in less tim
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:46 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
> > > Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
> >
> > Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
> >
> > In general it would be
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 14:47 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Sohail Somani wrote:
>
> > struct __some_random_name
> > {
> > void operator()(int & t){t++;}
> > };
> >
> > for_each(b,e,__some_random_name());
> >
> > Would this require a n
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 22:49 +0100, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> > I don't think it can possibly hurt as long as people follow normal C++
> > coding rules.
>
> Contrary to C there is no single general coding style for C++. In
> fact for a project
> of such a scale this may be indeed the most significa
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 13:31 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2006, at 12:46 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Will use C++ help or hurt compiler parallelism? Does it really matter?
>
> I'm not an expert, but, in the simple world I want, I want it to not
> matter in the least. For the people writing
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:46 -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:38:07PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > How many hunks do we need, well, today I want 8 for 4.2 and 16 for
> > mainline, each release, just 2x more. I'm assuming nice, equal sized
> > hunks. For larger variations in
The function cp_parser_parameter_declaration_clause says that it returns
NULL if the parameters are (...). However, there is a line of code that
is:
/* Parse the parameter-declaration-list. */
parameters = cp_parser_parameter_declaration_list (parser, &is_error);
/* If a parse error occurre
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 06:17 +, Brendon Costa wrote:
> How do i determine if two type nodes in the C front end are equivilent?
> In C++ i use same_type_p() but do not see an equivilant for the C front end.
Hi Brendon,
Wouldn't the C++ one (mostly) be a superset of the C?
Thanks,
Sohail
Hi,
I'm trying to implement proposal n1968 in g++ which basically adds
lambda functions to C++. The obvious way of implementing this is by a
simple translation which generates a function object which is created
where the lambda function is created. Something like:
for_each(b,e,<>(int & t){t++;})
