On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-08-23 23:08 , Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> I've tested this patch on x86_64 and ppc64 with all languages plus
>> ada, go and obj-c++. I am going to be offline for several days
>> starting on Saturday, so I will not commit it until I ret
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-08-24 12:03 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > I would just use C++ standard function `at()' (e.g. as found in vector)
> > for this.
>
> Sure. For regular functions, using default-valued arguments would be fine.
> But I think the mechanism would
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This patch is the first step towards making the API for VEC use
> member functions.
>
> There are no user code modifications in this patch. Everything
> is still using the VEC_* macros, but this time they expand into
> member function calls.
>
> Becau
On 2012-08-23 23:08 , Diego Novillo wrote:
I've tested this patch on x86_64 and ppc64 with all languages plus
ada, go and obj-c++. I am going to be offline for several days
starting on Saturday, so I will not commit it until I return.
I've also done memory and time comparisons to make sure I
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2012-08-24 12:03 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> I would just use C++ standard function `at()' (e.g. as found in vector)
>> for this.
>
>
> Sure. For regular functions, using default-valued arguments would be fine.
> But I think the mecha
On 2012-08-24 12:03 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I would just use C++ standard function `at()' (e.g. as found in vector)
for this.
Sure. For regular functions, using default-valued arguments would be
fine. But I think the mechanism would be much more transparent if the
compiler did the heavy
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> There is another issue that I need to address and I'm not quite
>> sure how to go about it: with the macro-based API, we make use of
>> pre-processor trickery to insert __FILE__, __LINE__ and
>> _
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
There is another issue that I need to address and I'm not quite
sure how to go about it: with the macro-based API, we make use of
pre-processor trickery to insert __FILE__, __LINE__ and
__FUNCTION__ into the argument list of functions.
When I change VEC
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I think I would like to explore the idea of implement a stack
> unwinder that's used by gcc_assert(). This way: (a) we do not
> need to uglify all the APIs with these extra arguments, (b) we
> can control how much of the call stack we show on an asserti
