On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
>
>
>> Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
>> primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite
>> will be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
>
>
> Just use th
> Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
> primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite will
> be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
Just use the numbers I used the last two times I tried to explain why PCH was
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader wrote:
>> > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
>> > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
>> > > committee is that we are still way far from having something
On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader wrote:
> > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
> > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
> > > committee is that we are still way far from having something
> > > that gets consensus of good enough proposal on modules
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
>> My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
>> that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
>> good enough proposal on modules to coalesce around. We have sever
2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis :
> My understanding from attending the last C++ standards committee is
> that we are still way far from having something that gets consensus of
> good enough proposal on modules to coalesce around. We have several
> proposals, each in various states of experimental imp
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>>> http:
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>>> http://
On 28 November 2012 20:16, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Is it permissable to ask a meta-question here ?
>
> What's so horrible about the definition of header files that something like
> this is necessary ?
>
> In Fortran we have modules. Certainly, the effic
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
>
On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
file
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
It's not immediately clear from the slides, but the "transitional" model is the
only model that we're pursuing. The other approach is set out in the slides
for contras
Thanks for all the responses, folks.
The choice is clear, then. We will not pursue the removal of PCH.
We'll attempt to re-structure PCH to use the streaming infrastructure,
to make it at least more efficient (we were observing very significant
file size gains when we tried it on the PPH branch).
On 11/27/2012 04:00 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Are there any big PCH users out there?
Yes, lots. We certainly need it to make OpenJDK builds tolerable. It
was quite a lot of work to reorganize the build to use it, but very
worthwhile.
Andrew.
On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
> any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
It's far too early for anything to have been voted into
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
David
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Xinliang David Li
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Lattner writes:
Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
plan to drop PCH su
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner writes:
>>> Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
>>> plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
>>
>> Do you have a pointer to th
On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Chris Lattner writes:
>> Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
>> plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
>
> Do you have a pointer to the modules proposal clang will implement?
Most of it is implemen
Chris Lattner writes:
> Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
> plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
Do you have a pointer to the modules proposal clang will implement?
Thanks,
-miles
--
「寒いね」と話しかければ「寒いね」と答える人のいるあったかさ [俵万智]
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Removing PCH will give us more implementation freedom for the memory
management project
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gc-alternatives).
>>>
>>> One of the arguments put forward to advocate the transition to C++ was the
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
>>> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
>>> * The next C++ s
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
>> following:
>>
>> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
>> * The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
>> (http://www.open-std.org
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> One of the arguments put forward to advocate the transition to C++ was the
> competition. Where do the other compilers stand when it comes to PCHs?
Note that although we are doing this in the umbrella of the C++
transition, this is actuall
> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
> following:
>
> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
> * The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf)
> * The user-ba
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
>> following:
>>
>> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
>> * The next C++ standard
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
>> primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite
>> will be quite noticeably
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
> primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite
> will be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
No, but I can get them. How
Hi,
>Thoughts?
Assuming that the new implementation will be available in time for 4.9, my
primary concern is that in the meanwhile running the libstdc++ testsuite will
be quite noticeably slower. Do you have some numbers?
Thanks,
Paolo
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
> following:
>
> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
> * The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/s
I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the following:
* The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
* The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf)
* The user-base for PCH is
31 matches
Mail list logo
