On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> The following snippet:
>
> class A {};
> class B : public A {
>
>typedef A super;
>
> public:
>
>class X {};
> };
>
>
> class C : public B {
>
>typedef B super;
>
>class X : public super::X {
>
> typedef super::X super;
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ulf Magnusson:
>
>> Are you thinking of something like this?
>>
>> bool overflow_bit2(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
>> const unsigned int ashift = a << 24;
>> const unsigned int bshif
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ulf Magnusson:
>
>> I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
>> signed overflow of an 8-bit CPU. The method I've found that seems to
>> generate the most efficient code on both
(I'll cross-post this to gcc and keep it on gcc-help after that.)
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> inline int8_t as_signed_8 (unsigned int a) {
> a &= 0xff;
> return a & 0x80 ? (int)a - 0x100 : a;
> }
>
> int overflow(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
> int sum = as_sign
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Ulf Magnusson writes:
>> Might as well do
>>
>> bool overflowbit(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
>> const unsigned int sum = a + b;
>> return (a ^ b) & ~(a ^ sum) & 0x80;
>> }
>>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Pedro Pedruzzi
> wrote:
>> Em 05-10-2011 17:11, Ulf Magnusson escreveu:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
>>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Pedro Pedruzzi
wrote:
> Em 05-10-2011 17:11, Ulf Magnusson escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
>> signed overflow of an 8-bit CPU.
>
> You would like to check whether a
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
> signed overflow of an 8-bit CPU. The method I've found that seems to
> generate the most efficient code on both ARM and x86 is
>
&g
Hi,
I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
signed overflow of an 8-bit CPU. The method I've found that seems to
generate the most efficient code on both ARM and x86 is
bool overflow(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
const unsigned int sum = (int8_t)a + (int8_t)b;
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ulf Magnusson writes:
>
>> Is there some reason why GCC couldn't generate this code for the first
>> version of C::f()? Is this a failure of optimization, or am I missing
>> something in how __restricted
Hi,
Given the code
class C { void f(int *p); int q; };
void C::f(int * __restrict p) __restrict {
q += 10;
*p = 7;
q += 10;
}
g++ 4.5.2 with -O3 generates the following for C::f() (prologue and
epilogue omitted):
mov0x8(%ebp),%eax // eax = this (= &q)
mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx // e
On 11/29/06, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> While searching for an answer, I noticed that lots of people seem
> to have had problems with cross-compilation that to me look more
> like problems in the documentation, which I find a bit sad.
Rather
On 11/29/06, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> How are you supposed to find the canonical name of a system (of known
> type) in CPU-Vendor-OS form in the general case? If you have access to
> a system of that particular type, you can run config.gues
On 11/28/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ first, this is the wrong list to ask such question, gcc-help is the
right one ]
On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> How are you supposed to find the canonical name of a system (of
> known type) in CPU-Vendor-OS
rom a documentation perspective. Is there any other way to get a list
mapping CPU's, Vendors and OS's to their canonical strings? If there
isn't, I think it's making things much more complicated than they
should be.
/Ulf Magnusson
15 matches
Mail list logo
