I had sent in the paperwork in october 2005.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian N. Makin
I can certainly send another if necessary.
--- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The original author of this patch said he sent his
> copyright ass
Got the documents signed and they are now on their
way.
--- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 11/3/06, Ian Blanes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The original author of this patch said he sent his
> copyright assignment. I
> > only did minor modification to his work so I don't
Hello all!
I would very much like to contribute to the gcc
project and as such have been monitoring the gcc list
and perusing the documentation.
One project in particular looks interesting.
Make insn-recog.c use a byte-coded DFA.
Richard Henderson and I started this back in 1999 but
never fini
In reference to this on the wiki.
Bitmaps, also called sparse bit sets, are implemented
using a linked list with a cache. This is probably not
the most time-efficient representation, and it is not
unusual for bitmap functions to show up high on the
execution profile. Bitmaps are used for many thi
Is there any need for people providing access to non
mainstream/commercial hardware?
I realize mostly everyone working on gcc has access to
an x86 of some form but perhaps not other machines.
I am probably setting up a dec alpha running openvms
shortly and could probably arrange a 32bit sun if
a
> Is it plan to add the D language in the ones that
are supported by
GCC
> by default?
I have been following the D language for some time.
In many ways it mirrors my own ideas on language
design. In my oppinion the biggest thing holding it
back is the lack of good tools.
If some folks are inte
I would highly suggest looking at google guidelines.
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml
They are aimed at taking some of the landlines out of c++ and give pros and
cons for each argument.
There are many places in the gcc source where we are already doing C++ thing
>On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steven Bosscher
wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Mark Mitchell
wrote:
>>> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>
> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal
>
I'd hate to see generated documented discounted so quickly.
Especially if the alternative is no documentation.
I'd note the QT docs as a great example of embedded
comments and auto generated documentation done very well.
I looked at the splay tree code in revision 106584.
It doesn't appear to actually be doing a top down
splay.
It is performing a top down partition of the tree but
without the splay step. This should cause some cases
to perform quite badly.
I'm pretty sure my original patch does the top down
spl
10 matches
Mail list logo
