On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
It's far too early for anything to have been voted into
On 11/27/2012 04:00 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Are there any big PCH users out there?
Yes, lots. We certainly need it to make OpenJDK builds tolerable. It
was quite a lot of work to reorganize the build to use it, but very
worthwhile.
Andrew.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/27/2012 03:51 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* Start implementing memory pools for data structures that do not need
>>>
>>> to be in PCH images. It is still not clear what types
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
> using a GC leads to easier maintainable code. The fact that we are more
> memory hungry than necessary (and also maybe consume more compile-time
> than
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:30:32AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
>> using a GC leads to easier maintainable code. The fact that we are more
>> memory hu
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
file size gains when we tried it on the PPH branch).
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Note that I don't think that non-GC is inherently better than GC. In fact,
> using a GC leads to easier maintainable code.
I don't think there is a direct relationship, actually. Other, easier
to maintain compilers, are quite happy witho
> I don't think there is a direct relationship, actually. Other, easier
> to maintain compilers, are quite happy without a GC. I do agree,
> however, that a bad memory management system leads to maintainability
> issues. We definitely do not want to fall into the obstack nightmare.
I agree comp
Hello,
I currenty build an arm-elf cross compiler. It is intended to use it
together with eCos, a small RTOS.
I want to use the C++ compiler and therefore I want to use the
libstdc++-v3. Since eCos has no underlying exception support I want to
disable all exceptions in the libstdc++-v3. This is po
This message is inappropirate on this list, which is for discussing
development of GCC. For help using or building GCC please use the
gcc-help list instead. Please take any follow up to that list, thanks.
On 28 November 2012 15:19, Martin Laabs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I currenty build an arm-elf cross
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
It's not immediately clear from the slides, but the "transitional" model is the
only model that we're pursuing. The other approach is set out in the slides
for contras
On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
file
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
>
On 28 November 2012 20:16, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Is it permissable to ask a meta-question here ?
>
> What's so horrible about the definition of header files that something like
> this is necessary ?
>
> In Fortran we have modules. Certainly, the effic
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>>> http://
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>>> http:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
> My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
> that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
> good enough proposal on modules to coalesce around. We have several
> proposals, each in various states of experimental imp
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
>> My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
>> that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
>> good enough proposal on modules to coalesce around. We have sever
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader wrote:
> > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
> > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
> > > committee is that we are still way far from having something
> > > that gets consensus of good enough proposal on modules
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader wrote:
>> > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
>> > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
>> > > committee is that we are still way far from having something
20 matches
Mail list logo
