Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100729 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100729/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 01:20:45PM -0700, Brian Makin wrote:
> Or to move to a better foundation? It seems to me that gcc has had various
> issues for various reasons for quite a while now. RMS is all for tightly
> controller yet freely distributable software.
> Maybe it's time to throw more ef
>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
>
Thanks for testing it out. There are probably more tuning
opportunities for fortran (e.g. larger solution search space, more
aggressive pruning, and more advanced loop invariants and register
pressure estimation), which I hope someone can continue working on (or
me if I find more time).
David
On
It buys the HIRLAM code about 100 seconds out of 8 thousands:
New:
$ grep 'FORECAST TOOK' HL_Cycle_2010072912.html
FORECAST TOOK 775.5685 SECONDS
FORECAST TOOK 779.8127 SECONDS
FORECAST TOOK29.8419 SECONDS
FORECAST TOOK 7929.5913 SECONDS
Compared to (old):
$ grep 'FORECAST TOOK' H
Richard Kenner wrote:
> Could part of the problem here be that RMS's view on "documentation" is
> that it's meant to be a creative process, somewhat akin to writing a book,
> and that mechanically creating "documentation" will produce something of
> much lower quality than what's done by hand? Ba
> Isn't one of the specific instances of this issue the desire to copy
> some of the constraints information from the source, which would need to
> go into the user manual rather than internals documentation?
>
> And in some cases a function index with documentation may be precisely
> what the
On 07/29/10 08:26, Richard Kenner wrote:
But even for documentation written by hand, often I find that I'd like to
start out with some comment or example from the actual code. The GPL / GFDL
dichotomy doesn't allow me to do that, so some documentation just won't get
written.
Taking an example
> But even for documentation written by hand, often I find that I'd like to
> start out with some comment or example from the actual code. The GPL / GFDL
> dichotomy doesn't allow me to do that, so some documentation just won't get
> written.
Taking an example from actual code would be "fair use"
Quoting Richard Kenner :
Could part of the problem here be that RMS's view on "documentation" is
that it's meant to be a creative process, somewhat akin to writing a book,
and that mechanically creating "documentation" will produce something of
much lower quality than what's done by hand? Back
> Wait. Steven's comment was on the snarky side, but coming from a
> long-time gcc contributor I don't think it was over the line or even
> near it. I think he was expressing a perfectly valid point of view
> considering the constraints that the FSF places on gcc developers. For
> certain aspect
On 07/28/10 10:26, Richard Guenther wrote:
[snip]
You can use the flatten attribute to tell the compiler to inline all
calls in a given function, like
void __attribute__((flatten)) foo(void)
{
...
decode1();
...
}
and it will inline decode1() (and recursively all its callees).
[snip]
Will th
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
Wait. Steven's comment was on the snarky side, but coming from a
long-time gcc contributor I don't think it was over the line or even
near it. I think he was expressing a perfectly valid
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
>
> Wait. Steven's comment was on the snarky side, but coming from a
> long-time gcc contributor I don't think it was over the line or even
> near it. I think he was expressing a perfectly valid point of view
> cons
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
Wait. Steven's comment was on the snarky side, but coming from a
long-time gcc contributor I don't think it was over the line or even
near it. I think he was expressing a perfectly valid point of view
considering
Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
16 matches
Mail list logo
