.
Of course, all this is silly if nested functions carry around their
lexical scope and can be returned. But I dont know that they do.
Thanks for your reply,
Sohail
Of course, all this is silly if nested functions carry around their
lexical scope and can be returned. But I dont know that they do.
A simple test case that would not invoke UB with n1968 lambda functions:
#include stdio.h
typedef void (*fn_t)();
void doinvoke(fn_t f)
{
f();
}
fn_t
There still are some discussions going on (it is not alsways feasable
to reflect all the discussions), especially with respect to callback,
default policy and the like.
[...]
There is the discussion on callbacks.
Are these discussions public? Is there a way to get archives?
Thanks,
Sohail
Quoting Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There is the discussion on callbacks.
|
| Are these discussions public?
Most of them happened at the last C++ committee meetings in Berlin,
Germany and Portland, Oregon). There must be some record on the
EWG wiki, but I
Each of the functions in a C/C++ program is dependent on
the global environment, but each is independent of each other.
Separate threads could process the tree/RTL for each function
independently, with the results merged on completion. This
may interact adversely with some global
.
The main issue is not really language choice though. The main issues
would likely be defining data to be isolated enough to be useful to do
work in parallel.
Lots of threads communicating a lot would be bad.
Sohail
that can be done by
make -j80? I would guess that certain tree transformations could be run
in parallel.
Do threads help for io-bound apps?
Thanks,
Sohail
is
helpful in locking code.
More 2c?
Sohail
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 14:47 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Sohail Somani wrote:
struct __some_random_name
{
void operator()(int t){t++;}
};
for_each(b,e,__some_random_name());
Would this require a new tree node like LAMBDA_FUNCTION or should the
parser do the translation
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:46 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
In general it would be a new class. If the lambda function looks like
. I think it sounds like (from what you say) that gcc needs
to be optimized before parallelized?
In some cases this might be easier.
Sohail
occurred while parsing the
parameter-declaration-list, then the entire
parameter-declaration-clause is erroneous. */
if (is_error)
return NULL;
So how does one tell if this function has returned an error?
Thanks,
Sohail
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 06:17 +, Brendon Costa wrote:
How do i determine if two type nodes in the C front end are equivilent?
In C++ i use same_type_p() but do not see an equivilant for the C front end.
Hi Brendon,
Wouldn't the C++ one (mostly) be a superset of the C?
Thanks,
Sohail
++;});
would become:
struct __some_random_name
{
void operator()(int t){t++;}
};
for_each(b,e,__some_random_name());
Would this require a new tree node like LAMBDA_FUNCTION or should the
parser do the translation? In the latter case, no new nodes should be
necessary (I think).
Thanks!
Sohail
14 matches
Mail list logo