https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-27
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bmburstein at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 89922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Alexander Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zamazan4ik at tut dot by
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> force the constexpr on `sort(a + 0, a + 7);`?
There has to be a limit. If I write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> What's the reason for writing the code as you pasted it?
I've tried to provide a simplified case. In real world `generate()` function
will have some arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> > Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and
> > force the constexpr on `sort(a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #4)
> Does providing some kind of -Oon-the-fly switch solves the issue with JIT
> compile times while still allows more optimizations for the traditional non
> JIT -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747
--- Comment #7 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> IMHO just use constexpr if you care about compile time evaluation
> guarantees, that is what it has been added for.
Fair point. Overcomplicated logic on the fr
12 matches
Mail list logo
