https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #4 from Erich Erstu ---
Intuitive logic says that even for a slow algorithm it should not be THAT slow
and memory heavy. And for a constant expression, the slowness of an algorithm
should not be that much of a concern in the first pla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #2 from Erich Erstu ---
Richard Biener, you were right. I optimized the implementation of all the
problematic constant expression functions similarly to the one seen below, and
the compilation time went down to practically zero with u
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hyena at hyena dot net.ee
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48876
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48876&action=edit
Contains the prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
--- Comment #4 from Erich Erstu ---
I also found out that when I try to populate a constexpr array using a trivial
constexpr function that passes on the argument initializer list then I get the
same error.
This does not work any more within the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92181
Erich Erstu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hyena at hyena dot net.ee
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95763
--- Comment #2 from Erich Erstu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This seems like a better fit for something like clang-tidy than being
> hardcoded into the compiler.
I can see the reasoning there, but different source/header f
, easyhack
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hyena at hyena dot net.ee
Target Milestone: ---
Actually, this is a feature request, not a bug report.
It would be very useful if I could
