Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 3 topics

comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Big problem with templates - 1 Update
• tdm gcc 5.1 slower than 4.7 - 2 Updates
• A "better" C++ - 1 Update

Big problem with templates

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Aug 30 08:18AM +1200 jacobnavia wrote:   > Of course this forum is useless for asking this types of questions. I > know now that better.   > I should not ask questions here then.   The quality of the answers you receive is a reflection of the the quality of the questions.   You have a couple of choices:   1) Stick with the old compiler. Sometimes the effort required to work with new tools is too great.   2) Ask meaningful questions with code samples and error messages and you will get meaningful answers.   -- Ian Collins

Back to top

tdm gcc 5.1 slower than 4.7

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Aug 29 05:57PM +0100 On 27/08/2015 22:02, Prroffessorr Fir Kenobi wrote: >> What optimisation settings are you using?   > c:\mingw\bin\g++ -std=c++98 -O2 -c -w test7.c -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -fno-threadsafe-statics -march=core2 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=both -msse2   > (-std=c++98 was used to check if it would be maybe speed up but not a difference)   OK, I'm not familiar with that compiler. But is O2 really the highest level? GCC and Clang both have O3.   No point in complaining the compiler is too slow when you haven't told it to do its best.   Andy

Prroffessorr Fir Kenobi <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: Aug 29 10:17AM -0700 W dniu sobota, 29 sierpnia 2015 18:57:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Vir Campestris napisał:   > No point in complaining the compiler is too slow when you haven't told > it to do its best.   > Andy   -O3 may produce unstable code which has risky optimisations and sometimes even crashes.. here i tested and O3 makes slower code

Back to top

A "better" C++

Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Aug 29 06:50PM +0200 On 2015-08-29 14:46, Öö Tiib wrote: > Playstation or Wii for launching their products first and perhaps > when there are enough resources ... then also port it to MS > platforms later.   No, their intention was that we should all code for Windows first, and then discover that the code isn't portable. That way they would get a monopoly.   Isn't working out very well though.     Bo Persson

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.