normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
First, apologies for the vague subject line, I really don't know what to call
this bug...
Consider the following test case:
// <<&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> Please try to reduce the testcase further, no includes. You have a number of
> options here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
Sorry, I thought
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
Return value optimization is not applied when calling a static member function
via an unnamed temporary (value or pointer, it doesn't matter). Calling the
fun
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
The following test case introduces an extra object copy, even though none
should be required:
// <<<--- bug.cpp --->>>
extern
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
Consider the following program compiled with `gcc -std=c++11'
= bug.cpp =
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
constexpr bool x = __builtin_constant_p(argc);
std::printf("
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10474
--- Comment #18 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #17)
> The testcase is now shrink-wrapped on ppc64 and x86_64, it is not on
> others such as i?86 because parameter-passing ABI basically prevents
> it. If any of the t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10474
--- Comment #20 from Ryan Johnson ---
Hi Martin,
(PM reply because I don't have up-to-date information to file a proper
bug report with)
On 25/11/2013 9:57 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1047
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14932
Ryan Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Jeremy from comment #5)
> It may not be possible, but perhaps a simpler thing might be for
> the asm() to notionally "return" a single boolean value which
> reflects ONE flag only.
Interesting!
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
The C++11 standard adds the "noexcept" specification that lets the programmer
assert that a function does not throw any exceptions (terminating executi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #7)
> You can do many of these things these days with asm goto, however it
> typically requires non-structured control flow (goto labels).
I filed this bug after determinin
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: scovich at gmail dot com
If a thread_local object is statically initialized---trivial or constexpr
constructor---but has a non-trivial destructor, the destructor will only run
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
