Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 01/18/07 10:51:
Well, internally, we do have ASSERT_EXPR. It would probably take a
little work to permit the frontends to generate it, but the optimizers
should understand it.
By default, they do not. When I initially implemented VRP, I was adding
ASSERT_EXPRs right
On 18 Jan 2007 10:19:37 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Guenther wrote:
|
| > Providing a __builtin_assert () function is still one thing on my
| > TODO, we can
| > derive proper ASSERT_EXPRs from it in VRP even in the -DNDEB
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Guenther wrote:
|
| > Providing a __builtin_assert () function is still one thing on my
| > TODO, we can
| > derive proper ASSERT_EXPRs from it in VRP even in the -DNDEBUG case.
|
| Great! Certainly could be profitably used in libstdc++.
Indee
On 1/18/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> > > optimizer job by allowing programmers to specify assumptions (or
>
Andrew Haley wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> > optimizer job by allowing programmers to specify assumptions (or
> > constraints).
>
> The answer is no, there is nothing
Richard Guenther wrote:
Providing a __builtin_assert () function is still one thing on my
TODO, we can
derive proper ASSERT_EXPRs from it in VRP even in the -DNDEBUG case.
Great! Certainly could be profitably used in libstdc++.
Paolo.
On 18 Jan 2007 07:51:51 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> > > optimizer job by allo
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> > > optimizer job by allowing programmers to specify assumptions (or
> > > constraints).
> >
> >
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> > optimizer job by allowing programmers to specify assumptions (or
> > constraints).
>
> The answer is no, there is nothing quite like you describe
Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to know if gcc has implemented some generic way to help
> optimizer job by allowing programmers to specify assumptions (or
> constraints).
The answer is no, there is nothing quite like you describe.
But I think it would be a good idea.
Ian
2006/5/4, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On May 4, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I used gcc-2.96 to compile gcc-3.4.6 core with the c++
> libraries added.
> It took almost if not two hours to compile and that was with these
> options:
>
> make CFLAGS='-O' LIBCFLAGS='-g -O2'
On May 4, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
I used gcc-2.96 to compile gcc-3.4.6 core with the c++
libraries added.
It took almost if not two hours to compile and that was with these
options:
make CFLAGS='-O' LIBCFLAGS='-g -O2'
LIBCXXFLAGS='-g -O2 -fno-implicit-templates' boot
12 matches
Mail list logo
