https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94578
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=93114
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan-Willem Blokland from comment #11)
> If you make use of an temporary variable, it sounds like you will do an
> additional memory copy. Therefore, I am wondering what the performance
> impact will be. Naively, I would think the span solution would be faster.
You are quite correct, but an optimized fix will take far more time
than is available until a release candidate for gcc 10 comes out
and all development is frozen. I'd rather have correct code on gcc 10.
I will revisit this later as part of PR 93114.
