[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes
From: |
j . eh |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:13:46 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 02:36:50PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le samedi 21 septembre 2013 00:02:58 Jared Maddox a ?crit :
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:50:28 +0200
> > > From: Thomas Preud'homme <address@hidden>
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes
> > > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Le vendredi 20 septembre 2013 03:08:10 Sylvain BERTRAND a ?crit :
> > >> Hi,
[.. snip ..]
> >
> > So the GCC C compiler even depends on C++ features now? I had thought
> > they were planning to keep the "core" set of compilers as C-based. A
> > shame.
>
> Yes, see http://lwn.net/Articles/542457/
Interesting, it is based on what is popular at any given moment.
But, http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
tells me they got it wrong. Someone probably should consider
php or python; there is a real chance any of those could be #1
in the near future.
John
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, (continued)
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, Jared Maddox, 2013/09/21
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, Jared Maddox, 2013/09/22
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, Jared Maddox, 2013/09/22
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, Jared Maddox, 2013/09/23
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] inline assembly and optimization passes, Jared Maddox, 2013/09/23