https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e8067041d1d69da02bd7578f58abc11eb35a04b
commit r12-5906-g2e8067041d1d69da02bd7578f58abc11eb35a04b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
We discussed before (e.g., in PR 93971) the idea of annotating std::string with
some attribute telling the optimizer the internal pointer doesn't alias with
anything except for the this->_M_local_buf or the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
So it seems that this warning did find a real issue with the library, but one
that was hard to connect to the actual wording of the message (and didn't
affect the original testcase). In particular,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 51970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51970=edit
libstdc++ fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, the warning does disappear when malloc() and free() are used instead of
operator new and delete. foo() also ends up much better optimized, even at
-O1:
__attribute__((abi_tag ("cxx11")))
struct string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I also noticed that with -std=c++17 (or before), the constructor for
> std::string is not inlined fully for both std::string objects which avoids
> the false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
