Gerald Pfeifer wrote, On Monday 18 February 2013 02:17 AM:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
There are technical details of the maintaining part - like would the
material reside in SVN? Or in the CVS where we keep our webpages? Or
somewhere else public (github?)? Would we want to
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
There are technical details of the maintaining part - like would the
material reside in SVN? Or in the CVS where we keep our webpages? Or
somewhere else public (github?)? Would we want to have an official
maintainer and use the usual patch /
On 02/16/2013 01:30 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote:
Will gcc 4.8 contain the stdatomic.h header (i am a little confused
about it, is it a standard header?)?
It's part of the C11 standard, not C++11. C11 atomics will not be
supported in 4.8, but should be in 4.9.
Jason
On 01/28/2013 02:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/23/2013 01:48 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote:
What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the
moment?
I need to go back over that section, but I think it's just inaccurate.
I've now updated the page.
Jason
2013/2/16 Franz Fehringer:
Thanks, looking much better now.
i am a little confused about it, is it a standard header?
Hi,
Yes:
If the macro constant __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__(C11) is defined by the compiler,
the header stdatomic.h, the keyword _Atomic, and all of the names listed
here are not
On Feb 8, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not quite sure that this clean split is possible, even after making
amends for template instantiation. It's great for syntax-driven tools,
but once you move beyond that, you tend to ignore stuff like destructors
(or the cleanup
On 01/24/2013 08:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code generating
On 02/08/2013 09:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/24/2013 08:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
On 01/23/2013 01:48 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote:
What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the moment?
I need to go back over that section, but I think it's just inaccurate.
Jason
Il 25/01/2013 08:24, Uday P. Khedker ha scritto:
Exactly. We have been using our training program since 2007 (and have
been incrementally refining it on a continuously). Our experience has
been that it has brought down the ramp up period of novices to a couple
of week.
A couple of weeks is
Paolo Bonzini wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 05:38 PM:
Il 25/01/2013 08:24, Uday P. Khedker ha scritto:
Exactly. We have been using our training program since 2007 (and have
been incrementally refining it on a continuously). Our experience has
been that it has brought down the ramp up
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/24/2013 12:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design
I have been following this discussion for quite a while now, guess
it's the right time to introduce myself as one of the newcomers.
I had attended the Abstractions in GCC workshop 2012 by Prof. Uday and
his team. It definitely helped me kick start with understanding of GCC
and got me interested;
I am keeping a diary of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Alec
On 01/23/2013 07:38 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Evolving this codebase is largely a thankless and difficult job. It's
technically interesting to me, but I know I can only do so much.
It's also worth pointing out that historically it's been very
difficult to persuade people to fund this. Many
On Thursday 24 January 2013 02:32 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
This is very different from putting it as one among so many other things on
the wiki. Look at it from the view point of a newcomer. There are so many
OK, then.
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate to involve the every decision, especially when
it's not
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I am keeping a diary of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do that from now on.
--
Kartik
http://k4rtik.wordpress.com/
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which
On Thursday 24 January 2013 03:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
But on a serious note, it would be great to view the course material as more
than documentation. The way there are official manuals and official code
available on the gcc website (I can't have my own manual and call it GCC
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:38 PM:
Anything I would consider official courseware would have to be contributed
to and maintained by the community (of which you can play the main part
of course). Now I don't know whether it is wise to try to ask the FSF if it
wants to
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
Yeah. It was focused on the RTL/md part of GCC, with
On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 19:59 +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 23/01/13 19:38, Diego Novillo wrote:
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably
On 01/24/2013 12:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code generating
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Agreed.
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end of GCC is its
biggest part; it is the thing
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler. Additionally, g++ has very low
fidelity wrt the
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is becoming a
self-evident truth.
However, as a
On 24/01/13 20:18, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler.
On 24/01/13 20:16, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:31:50PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
It'd be really cool if GCC could compile to LLVM and also parse it.
There exist a dragonegg plugin to GCC which uses GCC front-end and LLVM
back-end ( middle-end)
http://dragonegg.llvm.org/
Cheers
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH
David Malcolm wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 12:15 AM:
[oh, and Uday: am very much enjoying reading your Data Flow Analysis
book - thanks for writing it! ]
Thanks David!
I am already working on the second version because now I know very many
improvements that I would like to make.
Toon Moene wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 02:31 AM:
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is
On 23 January 2013 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote:
This is because no matter what one has done, unless one has contributed
code, one is not considered a contributor to GCC.
There are people credited in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.html for documentation
or bug triage work.
I think we need to come out of the documentation mindset. No amount of
conventional documentation is going to help. What we need is a training
material that included well defined assignments.
I agree. At one point, I had a large tutorial presentation. It's dated
now, since it's before the
On 23/01/13 10:26, Richard Kenner wrote:
I think we need to come out of the documentation mindset. No amount of
conventional documentation is going to help. What we need is a training
material that included well defined assignments.
I agree. At one point, I had a large tutorial presentation.
Please link it, I enjoy reading it and it couldn't harm!
I put it up at
http://www.gnat.com/~kenner/gcctut.ppt
It's 173 slides, but was last modified in 2000 and wasn't current then.
It predates tree-ssa and many of the changes in the way that target macros
were handled.
But it does talk
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
I think we need to come out of the documentation mindset. No amount of
conventional documentation is going to help. What we need is a training
material that included well defined assignments.
I agree. At one
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in writes:
I think we need to come out of the documentation mindset. No amount
of conventional documentation is going to help. What we need is a
training material that included well defined assignments.
FWIW, I initially learned GCC by an internal training
Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk a écrit:
I'd love to help with GCC, without documentation (in fact, without
instructions) I have no hope of doing so. Maybe instruct/ask people to
do stuff?
If I may propose something, I think a reasonable way of starting is to
pick an (easy) bug from bugzilla
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which is aimed at
taking a novice to a level from where she can do independent
experimentation with GCC internals.
I put together a bunch of teaching assistants (about 15 of them) for
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which is aimed at
taking a novice to a level from where she can do independent
experimentation with GCC internals.
I put together a bunch of
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
the
On 23/01/13 19:05, Richard Biener wrote:
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which is aimed at
taking a novice to a level from where she can do independent
experimentation with
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so
long
it remains my personal baby, my funding
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
newcomers particularly young students and experimenters from the academia.
Why is it that
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
I would like to take this training program
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
the
On 23/01/13 19:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
newcomers
On 23/01/13 19:38, Diego Novillo wrote:
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
newcomers particularly young students and
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
the
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which is aimed at
taking a novice to a level from where she can do independent
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
This is very different from putting it as one among so many other things on
the wiki. Look at it from the view point of a newcomer. There are so many
OK, then. Reorganize GettingStarted to make it prominent and
advertise
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
As usual,
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:
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
C++11 would be
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com 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
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's
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com 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
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk 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
On 22/01/13 16:57, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com 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
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk 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
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 actually
working
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 there is commercial
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 about the year the
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 people
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 these
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 really
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
deep
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
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.
While
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 be
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
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
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
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
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in 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
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Thanks.
~Mayuresh
94 matches
Mail list logo
