Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(17)

Issue 6443093: [cxx-conversion] Make double_int a class with methods and operators.

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 9 months ago by Lawrence Crowl
Modified:
11 years, 8 months ago
Reviewers:
mikestump, richard.guenther, matz, rth, gdr, Diego Novillo, miles
CC:
gcc-patches_gcc.gnu.org
Base URL:
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/cxx-conversion/
Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+935 lines, -336 lines) Patch
M gcc/double-int.h View 5 chunks +610 lines, -78 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/double-int.c View 25 chunks +210 lines, -90 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/fixed-value.c View 32 chunks +115 lines, -168 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 31
Lawrence Crowl
Convert double_int from a struct with function into a class with operators and methods. This ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 00:35:16 UTC) #1
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: > Convert double_int ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 08:16:07 UTC) #2
mikestump_comcast.net
On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > Convert double_int from a ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 17:22:24 UTC) #3
Diego Novillo
On 12-08-07 13:22 , Mike Stump wrote: > On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:35 PM, ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 17:25:19 UTC) #4
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/7/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:35 AM, ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 18:38:38 UTC) #5
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Lawrence ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 18:42:46 UTC) #6
mikestump_comcast.net
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > Hm. There seems to ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 19:54:20 UTC) #7
mikestump_comcast.net
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 8/7/12, Mike Stump ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 20:22:40 UTC) #8
rth_redhat.com
On 08/06/2012 05:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > +inline double_int & > +double_int::operator ++ () ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-07 23:08:55 UTC) #9
miles_gnu.org
Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes: >> Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently. ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 07:09:26 UTC) #10
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote: > Mike Stump ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 07:42:55 UTC) #11
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: > On 8/7/12, ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 07:47:42 UTC) #12
miles_gnu.org
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently. ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 08:29:57 UTC) #13
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote: > On Wed, ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 08:42:44 UTC) #14
gdr_integrable-solutions.net
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote: > Richard Guenther ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 09:36:30 UTC) #15
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Lawrence ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:17:44 UTC) #16
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/7/12, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Lawrence ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:20:02 UTC) #17
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/7/12, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/06/2012 05:35 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:21:20 UTC) #18
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012 Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:25:43 UTC) #19
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012 Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:32:53 UTC) #20
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/8/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 2012 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote: ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 22:38:37 UTC) #21
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/8/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Aug 8, 2012 Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-08 23:24:50 UTC) #22
Lawrence Crowl
On 8/8/12, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote: > Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes: > > > Constructors ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-08-09 01:15:42 UTC) #23
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: > On 8/7/12, ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 08:21:40 UTC) #24
richard.guenther_gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote: > On 8/8/12, ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 08:22:54 UTC) #25
gdr_integrable-solutions.net
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 08:26:44 UTC) #26
mikestump_comcast.net
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > Ah. For simple objects ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 15:11:01 UTC) #27
matz_suse.de
Hi, On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > > Ah. For simple objects ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 15:19:19 UTC) #28
mikestump_comcast.net
On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hmm. And maintaining a ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-09 17:34:36 UTC) #29
matz_suse.de
Hi, On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Mike Stump wrote: > On Aug 9, 2012, at ...
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-10 00:00:36 UTC) #30
mikestump_comcast.net
11 years, 8 months ago (2012-08-10 02:53:16 UTC) #31
On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Mike Stump wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hmm.  And maintaining a cache is faster than 
>>> passing/returning/manipulating two registers?
>> 
>> For the most part, we merely mirror existing code, check out 
>> lookup_const_double and immed_double_const.
> 
> No, I won't without patches on this list.

Ah, we are discussing the code in the gcc tree currently.  You _can_ comment on
it, if you like to.  I was only pointing out that this choice we didn't make nor
deviate from the code in the top of the tree.  If you think it is wrong to cache
it, then talking about the code in the top of the tree is the right place to
discuss it.  Though, you don't have to if you don't want to.

> You keep repeating bragging

Such hostility.  Why?  I don't get it.  I _asked_ about when the cxx branch was
going to land, I stated that I liked non-mutating interfaces, I gave a heads up
that we have a wide-int class to replace double-int for ints.  I _only_ gave a
heads up because of the submitted change to the cxx branch conflicts on a larger
than expected scale with the wide-int change.  I think giving a heads up before
the conflict happens is good citizenship.

> I mean, preparing the audience for an upcoming _suggested_ change in data 
> structure of course is fine.  But argueing as if the change happenend 
> already, and what's more concerning, as if the change was even already 
> suggested and agreed upon even though that's not the case, is just bad 
> style.

So, let me get this straight, alerting people that I have a patch that conflicts
with another posted patch is, bad style?  Odd.  I saw it listed on page 10 of
the etiquette guide, maybe you could update the guide for us.

> I would suggest to stay conservative about whatever you have (except if 
> it's momentarily materializing), and _especially don't argue against or 
> for or not against or for whatever improvement is suggested

Ah, that's a misunderstanding on your part.  I was not arguing for, or against
the double_int changes.  In fact, I'm very supportive of those changes and the
entire cxx branch, not that you'd know that, as I think all of the changes are a
slam dunk and don't need any support from me.  The :-( in the email that you
read, was just a comment that someone is going to have to resolve conflicts. 
Now that we know the timing of the cxx branch landing, we expect, we'll handle
the conflicts on the wide-int side.  If the timing was different, we'd land the
wide-int change first, then the :-( in the heads up comment would be read more
as, we're sorry, but we've just scrambled the tree on you, so sorry.

Let me be perfectly clear, I support the double_int changes and the entire
cxx-conversion branch.  No work I may or may not have matters or should be
considered in reviewing any patches.  I'm a firm believer in the first in, wins
method of resolving conflicts.  Sorry if anyone thought I was objecting in
anyway to the double_int work.

> Nobody has seen it yet,

Actually, that's not true; but, it doesn't matter any.

> so you can't expect to get any feedback on it.

I don't recall asking for feedback on it.  The feedback I requested that you
quote above, was feedback on the code in the top of the tree.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b