https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec5da76ad33dcba7858525fdb6b39288631fcd8a
commit r12-10206-gec5da76ad33dcba7858525fdb6b39288631fcd8a
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c6bb36e88d5c8e510b10d12c01e3461c2aa4259
commit r13-8421-g4c6bb36e88d5c8e510b10d12c01e3461c2aa4259
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:960de5dd886572711ef86fa1e15e30d3810eccb9
commit r14-1647-g960de5dd886572711ef86fa1e15e30d3810eccb9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
It's also very bad for code size, so yes, a loopy implementation is very
much prefered even for a much smaller threshold than 1024!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> if constexpr (_Nm > 1024 && is_trivially_default_constructible_v<_Tp>
> && is_trivially_assignable_v<_Tp&, _Tp&>)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110167
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|excessive compile time when |excessive compile time for
