On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Benjamin Kosnik b...@redhat.com wrote:
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite
will be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
Just
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite will
be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
Just use the numbers I used the last two times I tried to explain why PCH was
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.
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
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com 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
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
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
It's
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 efficient
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com 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
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
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
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
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
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
committee is that we are still way far from having
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
My understanding from attending the last
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
* The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf)
* The user-base for PCH is
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
* The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
Hi,
Thoughts?
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite will
be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
Thanks,
Paolo
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite
will be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
No, but
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
* The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf)
* The user-base for
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
One of the arguments put forward to advocate the transition to C++ was the
competition. Where do the other compilers stand when it comes to PCHs?
Note that although we are doing this in the umbrella of the C++
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
* The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Removing PCH will give us more implementation freedom for the memory
management project
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gc-alternatives).
One of the arguments put forward to advocate the transition to C++ was
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
Do you have a pointer to the modules proposal clang will implement?
Thanks,
-miles
--
「寒いね」と話しかければ「寒いね」と答える人のいるあったかさ [俵万智]
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
Do you have a pointer to the modules proposal clang will
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
plan to drop PCH support when modules is
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
Clang has fantastic support for
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
David
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:05 PM,
31 matches
Mail list logo
