On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM, lin zuojian wrote:
> Hi,
> I just ask for opinions.I think many GCC developers do familiar with
> the opponent.If I ask in the LLVM mailing list, I have to worry
> about If they are familiar with GCC, too(what's sched2 pass?).
I suspect you will have t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM, lin zuojian wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I read LLVM code for a while,and a question raise:Whose scheduler is
> better?
> LLVM brings in the DAG,and make it look important just like IR or
> MachineInst.But is that necessary?I don't see what kind of problem
>
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>
> Hi,
>
> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature is
> that the same implementation must be provided for both the case of function
> invocation substitutio
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> So this is not as bad as I was expecting (old programs still work),
>> but it is still a somewhat annoying ABI change to handle. I think we
>> can add support for this in clang in 3 ways:
>>
>> 1) Require new linkers when using gcc 4.7 libra
[Re-sending this to try to got through to the GCC mailing list...
Sorry for the duplication to others... My reply is at the bottom]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola
> wrote:
>>
>> > The GNU linker
