On 23 April 2010 07:22, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23/04/2010 05:47, tbp wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it
>>> is
>>> not a nice thing to do.
>> Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
>
> I apologise, I
On 23/04/2010 05:47, tbp wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it is
>> not a nice thing to do.
> Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
I apologise, I thought it was your intent but I believe you when you s
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it is
> not a nice thing to do.
Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
Seeing libstdc++ being combed over for constexpr, i've conveniently
fooled myself into believing my hopes were
On 22/04/2010 17:50, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Hi, Is there really a need for an angry reply like this? Is it better
> to just give some advises instead?
Ok, here is a non-angry reply to the angry post by tbp:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smoke_and_mirrors
> Noun
>
> smoke and mirrors
>
On 22 April 2010 18:50, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Hi, Is there really a need for an angry reply like this? Is it better
> to just give some advises instead?
>
I just want to express that I agree with David's sentiment and the
above behaviour is not representative of GCC's community, not mater
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote:
>
>> What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)?
>
> You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or
> you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-i
On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote:
> What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)?
You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or
you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-informed guesses
about what the compiler ought to do, and com
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The dead store problem seems to be a regression in SRA.
Thanks for looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43846
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> In any case, keep in mind that constexpr are not available yet, maybe the
> parser can already recognize some uses but the semantics is not done yet.
Ah, so it was nothing but smokes & mirrors. Thanks for the clarification.
The dead store problem seems to be a regression in SRA. In 4.4, the
struct with array is properly expanded in to scalars allowing copy
prop and dead code elimination -- in 4.5, this does not happen. You
should file a bug .
David
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM, tbp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> having fin
On 21/04/10 19.30, tbp wrote:
Hello,
having finally built myself a 4.5.0 (linux x86-64), i've quickly tried
it on some of my code and it soon became apparent some things weren't
for the better.
In any case, keep in mind that constexpr are not available yet, maybe
the parser can already reco
Hello,
having finally built myself a 4.5.0 (linux x86-64), i've quickly tried
it on some of my code and it soon became apparent some things weren't
for the better.
Here's my febrile attempt to sum up what surprised me
$ cat huh.cc
#include
#if __GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__ < 405
#define
12 matches
Mail list logo
