LOL. You've so bought into the sucker system that's been sold to you, and you don't even know it.
What is guaranteeing your $50 today is worth $50 tomorrow? No-one, and the fact is it won't be; it'll be worth less.
Get it in Bitcoins and it'll be worth more $ tomorrow. But meanwhile enjoy your fiat. After all, it's backed by that military that couldn't beat a bunch of peasants in Vietnam, right?
Economic strength? Hehehe. The US is an economic basket case, much like Zimbabwe.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Claiming the intent is not to replace GCC is pure propaganda and only there to not get some people's back up. It clearly is intended to replace GCC; ultimately pretty much the whole toolchain in fact; developers openly state they intend it to be a drop-in replacement.
I think this is very likely; the FSF's toolchain has dug its own grave, being poorly designed and non-modular. It was only a matter of time.
You haven't looked hard. TCC is not remotely close to C89 compliance; forget C99 altogether. And to get it close to C89 compliance, never mind portability, it would need rewriting.
Any chance of making the Gnumeric GUI a little less, um, sluggish?
When entering data the toolbars enable/disable with an annoying lag (instantaneous with Excel). Scrolling is also slow. And F9-ing a (sub)formula in the formula bar is a big missing item (great way to paste-value a single cell in Excel since the whole formula is selected with F2).
Any chance of making the Gnumeric GUI a little less, um, sluggish?
When entering data the toolbars enable/disable with an annoying lag (instantaneous with Excel). Scrolling is also slow. And F9-ing a (sub)formula in the formula bar is a big missing item (great way to paste-value a single cell in Excel since the whole formula is selected with F2).
Yes, I said they're identical, you said they're not. Only one of us is right, and it's me.
There's a difference in meaning. -O3 says: "Use that specific set of optimizations no matter what you can do or if you are a newer compiler", while -O9 says: "Use the maximum set of safe optimizations possible."The docs
or read the source.
# Can't inspect the value of a #define during debugging.
You can with the latest GCC and GDB, which can expand arbitrary macros, though the implementation is less than perfect in GDB.
Re:When comments are more than comments...
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
That's actually a fascinating little niche of code that is basically implementation-dependent: Does the// (or # for perl,shells,etc) have higher or lower precidence than the \ ? Does the fact that it's a line-comment make the \ meaningless, or does the \ bring in the next line, too?
No, it's well-defined, and as usual GCC gets it right.
erm, try $450-$4.
If you're going to correct, get your facts right. You can't take the high of the range as the pre-split price, and the low as the post-split.
$120-$4 is correct.
Also, some compilers (notably Borland) are incredibly efficent at compiling (sometimes through manipulating the language specs so the programmer lines things up so the compiler can just go through the source once and compiles as it goes).
Huh?? GCC only goes through the source once.
One reason Borland is fast for C / C++ is that they don't implement the full spec (e.g. trigraphs and escaped newlines are not implemented in the compiler proper), and they do little optimization.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. You've so bought into the sucker system that's been sold to you, and you don't even know it.
What is guaranteeing your $50 today is worth $50 tomorrow? No-one, and the fact is it won't be; it'll be worth less.
Get it in Bitcoins and it'll be worth more $ tomorrow. But meanwhile enjoy your fiat. After all, it's backed by that military that couldn't beat a bunch of peasants in Vietnam, right?
Economic strength? Hehehe. The US is an economic basket case, much like Zimbabwe.
Claiming the intent is not to replace GCC is pure propaganda and only there to not get some people's back up. It clearly is intended to replace GCC; ultimately pretty much the whole toolchain in fact; developers openly state they intend it to be a drop-in replacement.
I think this is very likely; the FSF's toolchain has dug its own grave, being poorly designed and non-modular. It was only a matter of time.
You haven't looked hard. TCC is not remotely close to C89 compliance; forget C99 altogether. And to get it close to C89 compliance, never mind portability, it would need rewriting.
If I were AMD I'd tell Dell to go fuck themselves; AMD isn't short of customers; Dell is long shitty products.
tcc is hardly a joke, let alone a kernel compiler, twat
Twat.
>> but Intel has actually been putting a fair bit of work into GCC
Bollocks. They only wrote some stuff to support IA64 because they were desperate and no-one else would.
No, you're spot on. And 4.0 is not really any faster than 3.4.
You missed:
4. Is nowhere near being C89-conformant, despite claims to the contrary.
Oddly enough, Israel doesn't figure in this fiasco at all, so your last comment is as inaccurate and irrelevant as your first comment.
If you believe that then you'll believe anything.Nope.
The reason GCC is slow is nothing to do with portability. It's that the data structures and algorithms suck.
Dude, you clearly have no clue about financial markets and how they work.
Kindly refrain from commenting about them until you do.
It took so damn long because you didn't write it.
Any chance of making the Gnumeric GUI a little less, um, sluggish?
When entering data the toolbars enable/disable with an annoying lag (instantaneous with Excel). Scrolling is also slow. And F9-ing a (sub)formula in the formula bar is a big missing item (great way to paste-value a single cell in Excel since the whole formula is selected with F2).
Any chance of making the Gnumeric GUI a little less, um, sluggish?
When entering data the toolbars enable/disable with an annoying lag (instantaneous with Excel). Scrolling is also slow. And F9-ing a (sub)formula in the formula bar is a big missing item (great way to paste-value a single cell in Excel since the whole formula is selected with F2).
Yes, I said they're identical, you said they're not. Only one of us is right, and it's me.
There's a difference in meaning. -O3 says: "Use that specific set of optimizations no matter what you can do or if you are a newer compiler", while -O9 says: "Use the maximum set of safe optimizations possible." The docs or read the source.Typical slashdot poster. Of course, if you bothered to read those favourite docs yourself, you would know that -O9 is no different from -O3.
VC++'s code is faster I believe the contrary. Evidence?
Actually, it means none of the above. If you know the characters, it is clear it means "made in Japan".
akihabara
You can with the latest GCC and GDB, which can expand arbitrary macros, though the implementation is less than perfect in GDB.
That's actually a fascinating little niche of code that is basically implementation-dependent: Does the // (or # for perl,shells,etc) have higher or lower precidence than the \ ? Does the fact that it's a line-comment make the \ meaningless, or does the \ bring in the next line, too?
No, it's well-defined, and as usual GCC gets it right.
erm, try $450-$4. If you're going to correct, get your facts right. You can't take the high of the range as the pre-split price, and the low as the post-split. $120-$4 is correct.
Also, some compilers (notably Borland) are incredibly efficent at compiling (sometimes through manipulating the language specs so the programmer lines things up so the compiler can just go through the source once and compiles as it goes).
Huh?? GCC only goes through the source once.
One reason Borland is fast for C / C++ is that they don't implement the full spec (e.g. trigraphs and escaped newlines are not implemented in the compiler proper), and they do little optimization.