Am Freitag, den 03.12.2010, 03:30 -0500 schrieb Felix:
> From: Thomas Chust
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:16:21 +0100
>
> > 2010/12/1 Felix :
> >> [...]
> >> Oh, and clang gave me stupid warnings that where actuall
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:40:02 +0100
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:32:56AM -0500, Felix wrote:
>> > This looks nice. I didn't know about those. When I looked it up, it
>> > said that both are C99, which le
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:32:56AM -0500, Felix wrote:
> > This looks nice. I didn't know about those. When I looked it up, it
> > said that both are C99, which leads me to the question: do we have an
> > "official" standpoint about what C level Chicken needs?
>
> It should work with the usual c
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:48:24 +0100
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 04:16:21PM +0100, Thomas Chust wrote:
>> what about using
>>
>> #include
>> [...]
>> if (isnan(x)) ...
>>
>>
From: Thomas Chust
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:16:21 +0100
> 2010/12/1 Felix :
>> [...]
>> Oh, and clang gave me stupid warnings that where actually wrong
>> (an "x == x" comparison of floats to detect NaN, which is IMHO
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 04:16:21PM +0100, Thomas Chust wrote:
> what about using
>
> #include
> [...]
> if (isnan(x)) ...
>
> or maybe
>
> [...]
> if (fpclassify(x) == FP_NAN) ...
>
> instead of a comparison? I would expect the compiler to inline these
> calls and produce equally eff
2010/12/1 Felix :
> [...]
> Oh, and clang gave me stupid warnings that where actually wrong
> (an "x == x" comparison of floats to detect NaN, which is IMHO
> totally correct, triggers a warning - but I'm sure John can give
> us the correct interpretation of the standard C semantics).
> [...]
Hell
From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:35:21 -0500
> Felix scripsit:
>
>> Oh, and clang gave me stupid warnings that where actually wrong
>> (an "x == x" comparison of floats to detect NaN, which is IMHO
>> t
Felix scripsit:
> Oh, and clang gave me stupid warnings that where actually wrong
> (an "x == x" comparison of floats to detect NaN, which is IMHO
> totally correct, triggers a warning - but I'm sure John can give
> us the correct interpretation of the standard C semantics).
ISO C doesn't require
From: David Dreisigmeyer
Subject: [Chicken-users] llvm-gcc / clang
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:04:17 -0500
> Would there be any advantages / disadvantages to using llvm-gcc /
> clang versus gcc?
I can't say. Chicken compiles fine with both, it seems (at least
the last time I tried), wit
2010/12/1 David Dreisigmeyer :
> Would there be any major differences when it came to Objective-C?
> [...]
Hello,
there are some differences as to the language supported by GCC and
clang. For example clang supports so called blocks in C and
Objective-C (a feature very similar to closures in Schem
Would there be any major differences when it came to Objective-C?
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:04:17AM -0500, David Dreisigmeyer wrote:
>> Would there be any advantages / disadvantages to using llvm-gcc /
>> clang versus gcc?
>
> advantage: You'd
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:04:17AM -0500, David Dreisigmeyer wrote:
> Would there be any advantages / disadvantages to using llvm-gcc /
> clang versus gcc?
advantage: You'd have a fully BSD-licensed compiler stack.
disadvantage: You'd be pretty much the only user that uses llvm.
Apart from that,
Would there be any advantages / disadvantages to using llvm-gcc /
clang versus gcc?
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
14 matches
Mail list logo
