>>> On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> > to signific
>>> On 18.02.11 at 00:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So one way to cut down the size of .rela.dyn section would be a relocation
> like
> R_X86_64_RELATIVE_BLOCK where applying such a relocation with r_offset O and
> r_addend N would be:
> uint64_t *ptr = O;
> for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
> ptr[i] += bias
Hello Folks
You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
http://www.aspectc.org/
Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
Would be cool to define aspect because it would make your code much smaller
and more readable. Additionally it comes in very handy if
Hello Folks
You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
http://www.aspectc.org/
Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
Would be cool to define aspect because it would make your code much smaller
and more readable. Additionally it comes in very handy if
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
>
> Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
> compiler that works again on darwin.
>
> That said,
Jack,
thanks for testing this out. You can xfail these. Iain sent me this
morning an additional patch that xfails these; he must have forgotten
to include it in the original one.
I'll attach it. I can't commit now; if Mike or you have time, please do.
I understand that the patch is pre-approve
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > According to Mozilla folks how
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:56:47AM -0800, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
> Hello Folks
> You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
> http://www.aspectc.org/
> Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
> Would be cool to define aspect because it would make you
I had already removed all define_delay definitions in mips.md.
There were still a few leftover branches that had nop in the delay slot.
One of these cases is the first example I showed.
I solved the issue by editing the SETUP_GTX macro located in
glibc-2.3.6/sysdeps/mips/sys/asm.h
The macro was
>The following is just my opinion and others may disagree, but I don't
>think it's a good idea because I think that the costs would greatly
>outweigh the benefits.
As long as it supports the development of a productive and informative
conversation, I'm glad about any kind of opinion.
>OK, let's as
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > According to Mozil
On 18 February 2011 20:26, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
> I'm NO compiler architect, but from my point of perspective - please correct
> me if I'm wrong - for adding support for AOP into C/C++ part of gcc, only
> minor
> changes would be needed.
Even if that's true (I don't know, but adding almost a
On 02/18/2011 02:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 18 February 2011 20:26, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
I'm NO compiler architect, but from my point of perspective - please correct
me if I'm wrong - for adding support for AOP into C/C++ part of gcc, only minor
changes would be needed.
Even if that'
>And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable.
Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become
more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts).
It's one of the aspects of AOP that sourcecode will be stripped down enormous,
because generalization is much e
On 18 February 2011 21:59, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
>
> Ok, well, in this case, let me ask a very naive question:
> Who do I need to mail to, in order to motivate the definition of an ISO
> standard for AOP in C/C++? ^.^"
You could contact your national standards body, or post to the
comp.std.c++
On 2/18/2011 4:59 PM, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable.
Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become
more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts).
It's one of the aspects of AOP that sourcecode will be strippe
On 2/18/2011 8:05 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 2/18/2011 4:59 PM, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable.
Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become
more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts).
It's one of the asp
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
>> Ubuntu and other derivative distributio
2011/2/13 Joseph S. Myers :
> User-visible improvements relative to 4.5 should also be
> documented in gcc-4.6/changes.html if not already mentioned there.
We also have a new section for developer-visible changes which would
be helpful for plugin and out-of-the-tree front-/back-end developers,
ple
19 matches
Mail list logo
