On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:41AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM, FX wrote:
>>
>> > > Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
>> > > Two possible ways to go:
>> > > - disable li
> From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
> with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
> the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
> amount of time:
>
> default languages:67 minutes
> default - java:
On 11/11/2013 09:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.11.2013 11:06, schrieb Andrew Haley:
>> On 11/11/2013 03:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 11/09/13 08:55, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/09/2013 03:44 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
> If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
>
Hi Everyone,
The exploration of how compilation optimizations affect energy
consumption of embedded devices has been written up and published. Full
paper (open access) can be viewed here:
http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/11/comjnl.bxt129.abstract
Thanks,
James
ABSTRAC
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 11/08/13 05:36, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > I realised that the C11 atomics changes didn't do anything to record
> > atomic types as such in DWARF debug info - then found that DWARF4 didn't
> > provide a way to specify the C11 _Atomic qualifier at all.
On 11/12/13 00:19, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
[rant]
So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of code
like this
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
With everything being a tree, the fact that I passed an SSA_NAME to
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P rather than a tree type wasn't caught at compile time.
Because this
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's time to move on and do something sensible with the core parts of our
> ILs so that we're all more effective in the long run.
My sentiments, exactly!
Diego.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:59:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of
> code like this
>
> if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is a macro, which accepts everything, just adding
a TYPE_CHECK to that macro would be
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Note that we have tons of code which accept either objects or types,
> both in the frontends and in the middle-end, so changing TREE_TYPE
> from tree to something else is definitely non-trivial.
Well, sure it's hard. This is the whole poin
The name David Malcolm comes to mind, I remember watching a GCC ...
bucket, tub, some sort of large container (pot?) talk on it.
He was replacing all the macros with a class with no virtuals (only one
data member, as used by the macros in effect) and so forth and using
inheritance, doesn't tha
On 11/12/13 13:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:59:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
So I lost something like 3 hrs last night due to writing a hunk of
code like this
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt)))
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is a macro, which accepts everything, just adding
On 11/12/13 14:19, Alec Teal wrote:
The name David Malcolm comes to mind, I remember watching a GCC ...
bucket, tub, some sort of large container (pot?) talk on it.
He was replacing all the macros with a class with no virtuals (only one
data member, as used by the macros in effect) and so forth
[Sorry for double post - gmail insists that "GCC" is gcc-patches@, not
gcc@ :-/ ]
Hello,
Here is a non-comprehensive list of macros that are used with a
function passed to the macro's argument, and the macro evaluates that
argument at least twice:
gimple.c: && (CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P (gim
On 11/12/13 01:27, Eric Botcazou wrote:
From what I can see, bootstrapping with Ada is slower than bootstapping
with Java, by around 15%. Again this is on one of my slower boxes, but
the results clearly show building Ada & its runtime takes a considerable
amount of time:
default languages:
16 matches
Mail list logo
