I would like to make some changes in GCC 8, so I thought that formal
proposal and RFC would be the best path. I'm still relatively new to the
GCC project.
I began experimenting with C metaprogramming techniques back in 2012, in
order to implement more efficient generic libraries in C. The code
On 05/06/2017 12:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Michael Meissner writes:
This message is separated from the question about moving code, as it is a
questions about the functionality of target_clone support.
Right now it looks like target_clone only generates the ifunc handler if there
is a cal
On 05/05/2017 04:37 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
I have a simple question about dump_printf and dump_printf_loc. I notice
that most (all?) of the uses of these function are of the form:
if (dump_enabled_p ())
dump_printf_loc (MSG_*, ..);
Since dump_enabled_p() is just ch
On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them on the
> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only touch the
> RISC-V backend, which I'm a maintainer of. Is there a branch maintainer I'm
> supposed t
On 05/06/2017 07:09 PM, Taylor Holberton wrote:
Except instead of using c++ style mangling, it would simply just
prepend the name of the namespace to the symbols in the file.
Would this also apply to type names and struct tags? How does it
interfere with the name resolution in the body of inl
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Fredrik Hederstierna
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about loop induction variables, related to
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67213
>
> Consider a simple loop like
>
> int ix;
> for (ix = 0; ix < 6; ix++) {
> data[ix] = ix;
> }
>
> I
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a simple question about dump_printf and dump_printf_loc. I notice
> that most (all?) of the uses of these function are of the form:
>
> if (dump_enabled_p ())
> dump_printf_loc (MSG_*, ..);
>
> Since dump_en
