On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
> C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do it.
Andrew.
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>>> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
>>> C++11 would be added in to GCC?
>> Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>>
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.
About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete."
How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs
to change if it is to continue to be the best.
Best is measured by many metrics, and it is unrealistic to expect
any product to be best in all respects.
Anyway, it
On 01/22/2013 02:29 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>>> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
>>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
> Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
> of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such interest, and in the
> absence of such commercial
> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
> documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
> could disappear with one bus factor.
That is definitely a worthwhile goal, and one that
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
> documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
> could disappear with one bus fact
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which
On 22/01/13 16:57, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people tha
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe
On 22 January 2013 17:12, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>> Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has to or will
>> "finish" when Clang does? Are you going to do the missing work? Or
>> get someone else to? Do you know something those of us actua
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try
and diffuse just one person's (potentially wrong) perception clang has
better error reports than GCC is not what I had in mind.
Not sure what I wanted, having s
Sorry for totally derailing this Mayuresh Kathe.
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As u
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
> You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
> Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try and
> diffuse just one person's (potentially wr
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
>> Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
>> of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such i
On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try and
d
On 01/22/2013 01:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
GCC 4.8 will be feature-complete except for ref-qualifiers, which should
go onto the trunk soon, and perhaps into a later 4.8.x release.
Jason
On 22/01/13 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
of c++11, we cer
On 01/10/2013 08:58 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
Normally, the version identifier is applied to a type. It then
propagates to any declaration using that type, whether it's another
type or function or variable. For struct/union/class types, if any
member or base class has an attached version identifier
On 22 January 2013 18:02, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 22/01/13 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that
On 22 January 2013 17:51, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
>>>
>>> You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
>>
>> Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
>>
>>> Bitching a
On 01/22/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
>> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
>> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
>> documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in peop
> For example, I used to think that it would be a good idea to
> document the tree form(s), but I now realize that the file tree.h is
> exactly what is required.
Indeed. And we do try hard to make sure that the comments are updated
when the contents are. That's why I'm not sure a big fan of thes
On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
> I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify:
> I define bitching to be "pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing
> gets done". Like the error thing "well actually that's a myth from some
> deep dark place where they used a r
On 22/01/13 18:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify:
I define bitching to be "pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing
gets done". Like the error thing "well actually that's a myth from some
de
On 22 January 2013 19:13, Alec Teal wrote:
>
> I meant "out there" not with GCC, I do think macros have a use, a report of
> the form "expanded from: " would be helpful, and some sort of callstack-like
> output?
GCC 4.8 does something like that. It isn't perfect yet, but it's pretty good.
Robert Dewar wrote:
About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete."
How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs
to change if it is to continue to be the best.
Best is measured by many metrics, and it is unrealistic to expect
any product to be best in all
I was wondering if anyone else is seeing problems running the libatomic
testsuite with a multilib target? It seems to have started failing for
me over the weekend but I can't seem to find any changes that would have
caused this.
I am running using the qemu simulator, and it works fine for the GCC
>> Normally, the version identifier is applied to a type. It then
>> propagates to any declaration using that type, whether it's another
>> type or function or variable. For struct/union/class types, if any
>> member or base class has an attached version identifier (excluding
>> static data members
Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com] wrote:
>
> > From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-02/msg01480.html,
> > the patch defines HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE to return
> proper mode for i386.
> > For MIPS, we may have:
> > Ex:
> > #define HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE(REGNO,
> The C / C++ sources that transform / match / analyze trees and rtxes are
> plain C. Reading these sources, nothing reminds you of the structure of
> the code that is to be transformed / matched / analyzed. It's all
> hand-coded in C and looks considerably different to a tree or RTL dump.
Wh
What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the moment?
Franz
Am 22.01.2013 19:01, schrieb Jason Merrill:
> On 01/22/2013 01:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
>> C++11 would be added in to GCC?
>
> GCC 4.8 will
Hello,
This suggestion is obviously about typdefs and discusses a *theoretical*
implementation, well a few of them. Anyway please do read this though.
I'm really sorry for the poor structure, my hands are really cold and
I'm quite tired.
I understand that this issue has been discussed A LOT an
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:53:06AM +, Alec Teal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This suggestion is obviously about typdefs and discusses a
> *theoretical* implementation, well a few of them. Anyway please do
> read this though. I'm really sorry for the poor structure, my hands
> are really cold and I'm qu
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people that
could disappear with one bus fac
On 23/01/13 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in peop
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 01:12 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd love to read it and
know more of how the two
On 23/01/13 07:48, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 01:12 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd love
Uday Khedker wrote:
>
>
>
>On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
>>> understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
>>> documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in people t
41 matches
Mail list logo
