Re: Object attribute tagging

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:50:27AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > The question was raised a while back on the gcc-patches and gdb-patches > lists of how GCC should tag objects with some ABI information for the use > of GDB, noting that various different methods have been in use >

Re: Activate -mrecip with -ffast-math?

Bradley Lucier wrote: > If -ffinite-math-only is specified, then producing NaN instead of inf > should be allowed. Agreed. After all, -finite-math says: Allow optimizations for floating-point arithmetic that assume that arguments and results are not NaNs or +-Infs. Since the compiler

Re: RFC: Make dllimport/dllexport imply default visibility

That is a limited view of things based on the current implementation of GCC. When future developments (e.g. LTO) occur, this will change: types certainly do live in object files. I don't see how LTO changes this. Yes, type definitions will appear in one or more object files. But, the i

Re: Activate -mrecip with -ffast-math?

On 6/19/07, tbp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Indeed there are holes in every direction when you pull in such transformation, and the cost of plugging every one of them would be prohibitive; the next batch of c2d supposedly will leave you with ~6 cycles to make it worth for a sqrt. My C2D has 6 c

Re: RFC: Make dllimport/dllexport imply default visibility

Chris Lattner wrote: >>> That is a limited view of things based on the current implementation of >>> GCC. When future developments (e.g. LTO) occur, this will change: types >>> certainly do live in object files. >> >> I don't see how LTO changes this. Yes, type definitions will appear in >> one o

Re: New LTO branch ready

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Hi guys, I have merged all patches touching lto/ into the new lto branch Thank you! Did you also pull over Kenny's LTO-writer code? I'll try to get it compiling soon. > I will perform merges from mainline to branch every week or two, > unless you guys see a good reason n

<    1   2