https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115764
Bug ID: 115764
Summary: When enabling CSE for SLP two operator nodes
526.blender_r breaks
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115764
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2be2145f4f14a79e4bb8e845168d7f0d25dc1b5b
commit r15-1804-g2be2145f4f14a79e4bb8e845168d7f0d25dc1b5b
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 109130, which changed state.
Bug 109130 Summary: [13/14/15 Regression] 464.h264ref regressed by 6.5% on a
Neoverse-N1 CPU with PGO, LTO, -Ofast and -march=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109130
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109130
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115629
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I think we sort-of agreed to have .MASK_LOAD to have inactive lanes zeroed but
we never got around to formalizing that. Note AVX512 supports zero-masking for
.MASK_STORE IIRC, not just merge. Same for .MA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:239ad907b1fc08874042f8bea5f61eaf3ba2877d
commit r15-1806-g239ad907b1fc08874042f8bea5f61eaf3ba2877d
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115748
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #4)
> Created attachment 58567 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Here's my proposed patch.
LGTM but I wonder if x86 general_operand should instead support those
in-place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115765
Bug ID: 115765
Summary: [13 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115765
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is in dead code, something || 8 will always be 1 and when something
doesn't have side-effects, even -O0 performs some limited optimizations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13 Regression] signed |[11/12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
Current rtx_cost for imulq in generic_cost is COST_N_INSNS (4), make it as
COST_N_INSNS (3) could generate imulq.
{COSTS_N_INSNS (3), /* cost of starting multiply for QI */
COSTS_N_INS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115755
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25127123100f04c2d5d70c6933a5f5aedcd69c40
commit r15-1808-g25127123100f04c2d5d70c6933a5f5aedcd69c40
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:735edbf1e2479fa2323a2b4a9714fae1a0925f74
commit r15-1809-g735edbf1e2479fa2323a2b4a9714fae1a0925f74
Author: Tamar Christina
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98762
--- Comment #1 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9fb6efa1cf542353fd44ddcbb5136344c463fd0
commit r15-1810-ge9fb6efa1cf542353fd44ddcbb5136344c463fd0
Author: Georg-Johann Lay
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115336
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
Follow-up on this one: My workaround of emitting a vmv.v.i v[0-9],0 before any
(potentially) offending masked load is not going to work universally.
That's because on several instances we make use of the fact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #2 from Monk Chiang ---
Thanks Pan.
Another test. It includes vfmv.v.f, vfmv.s.f
compile option:
-mabi=lp64d -march=rv64gcv_zfh_zvfhmin -O3 -ftree-vectorize
-fno-vect-cost-model -S
#include
void f__Float16_int8_t (_Float16 *res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98762
--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:55744507abc5240fe1a59a6251f815a0d6217fe8
commit r14-10373-g55744507abc5240fe1a59a6251f815a0d6217fe8
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
Thanks, I have a quick fix but it looks to break the zvfh to generate the vfmv
insn. Let me have another try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98762
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba9fef4bdea32ca5c121a1baba02450faf2b
commit r13-8887-gba9fef4bdea32ca5c121a1baba02450faf2b
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115764
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 58578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58578&action=edit
patch to enable CSE
This is the patch to enable CSE and have the gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-76.c testcase
ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98762
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f699cb08eed44a903393f601009e9c6d0b59c59
commit r12-10596-g5f699cb08eed44a903393f601009e9c6d0b59c59
Author: Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98762
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
Bug ID: 115766
Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization
levels -O2, -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115744
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58563|0 |1
is obsolete|
ng Buildroot 2024.02.1 with the
following configure flags:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS='--version'
COLLECT_GCC=[...]/host/bin/aarch64-linux-g++.br_real
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=[...]/host/libexec/gcc/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/15.0.0/lto-wrapper
aarch64-linux-g++.br_real (Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767
Ignacy Gawędzki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs at qult dot net
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
Bug ID: 115768
Summary: [C23] constexpr array of string literals not optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115457
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c10942134fa759843ac1ed1424b86fcb8e6368ba
commit r15-1812-gc10942134fa759843ac1ed1424b86fcb8e6368ba
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115475
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6492c7130d6ae9992298fc3d072e2589d1131376
commit r15-1813-g6492c7130d6ae9992298fc3d072e2589d1131376
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
--- Comment #2 from Bi6c ---
Created attachment 58582
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58582&action=edit
preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102061
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I found some "interesting" thing in alpha.md:
;; Subregs suck for register allocation. Pretend we can move TFmode
;; data between general registers until after reload.
;; ??? Is this still true now that we hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113719
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf2fc0a27b35de039c3d45e6d7ea9ad0a8a305ba
commit r15-1814-gbf2fc0a27b35de039c3d45e6d7ea9ad0a8a305ba
Author: Alexandre Oliva
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115312
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3389a23fd492b7920a62de6af298251b3cdab617
commit r14-10374-g3389a23fd492b7920a62de6af298251b3cdab617
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115312
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115769
Bug ID: 115769
Summary: Implement CWG 2867 - Order of initialization for
structured bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111035
Manuel Köppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manuel.koeppen at gmx dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Reduced more:
long double
test (long double xx)
{
__asm ("" :: "f"(xx));
return xx + 1;
}
and this one fails at -O2 & -O3 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-03
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113681
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[loongarch -O1] ICE:|[13/14/15 Regression]
|ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115743
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> install-data-local change does look correct though or at least closer to
> what it should be.
If we're going to check three possible variables instead of two,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115743
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ralf Habacker from comment #0)
> but building gcc for the mentioned target with gcc version 13.2.0 installs
> the gdb printer for libstdc++ into
>
> /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Bug ID: 115770
Summary: Undefined arm instruction (udf #255) is generated when
optimizer is on O2
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #6 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> Interestingly, not happening with 12.
Error from r15-1765,but I think there should have been a problem, it just
didn't come out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #7 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> Reduced more:
>
> long double
> test (long double xx)
> {
>__asm ("" :: "f"(xx));
>return xx + 1;
> }
>
> and this one fails at -O2 & -O3 too.
I'm not sure if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Correction: the option to add is -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
Sorry for the confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Started from r13-1834 (which removed movtf).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #2)
> On LA, if mode is TFmode and regno is the number of the floating-point
> register, can this hook return true, or must it return false?
To me it can return true, but th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
Bug ID: 115771
Summary: false postiv -Wstringop-overread with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #2)
>
> > On LA, if mode is TFmode and regno is the number of the floating-point
> > register, can this hook return true, or must i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Bug ID: 115772
Summary: static_assert does not accept constexpr member
function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #11 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > Reduced more:
> >
> > long double
> > test (long double xx)
> > {
> >__asm ("" :: "f"(xx));
> >return xx + 1;
> > }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > > Reduced more:
> > >
> > > long double
> > > test (long double xx)
> > > {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115736
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Indeed.
Is "puts" safe or unsafe to call from a signal handler?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the testcase needs:
```
#include
```
for newer gcc versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114990
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to cqwrteur from comment #17)
> But does that apply to classes, templates or template specialization, etc.?
Yes, everything that you would define in a header.
> If someone writes a function=dele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115755
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> mulx doesn't support imm operand, a register is still needed to put 123.
> mulq is used func/func1 should be ok.
Right, but mulx does not set the flags so it shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115533
--- Comment #23 from Alexander Monakov ---
I suggest it to close this a dup of PR 106902 if there are no better ideas.
By the way, in both cases SLP introduces vectors in a loop where scalar
computations it's attempting to replace are not elimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||13.2.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2280r4.html
change was approved by the C++ committee as a defect report for older
standards, so this change is expected to apply to C++17. So n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de9254e224eb3d89303cb9b3ba50b4c479c55f7c
commit r15-1822-gde9254e224eb3d89303cb9b3ba50b4c479c55f7c
Author: Pan Li
Date: Wed Jul 3 22:06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115752
--- Comment #13 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> > > > Reduced more:
> > > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115763
--- Comment #5 from Li Pan ---
The second test may still have some problem, will double check about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 115772, which changed state.
Bug 115772 Summary: static_assert rejected constexpr member function with
non-constexpr this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115772
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.2|14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Shun.Yao at de dot bosch.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
For C++ (well with GCC extensions obvious) this would be valid:
```
static constexpr const char *names[] = {
[CE_RED] = "RED",
[CE_GREEN] = "GREEN",
[CE_BLUE] = "BLUE",
};
```
And gets optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115773
Bug ID: 115773
Summary: gcc crashed with a init-capture which introduces a
pack inside another lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #3 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >The unused constexpr names aren't optimized out but the const*const ones are.
>
>
> They are different.
> In the constexpr case, you have an array of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>constexpr int y = s0.C;
The above is now valid due to https://wg21.link/p2280r2 (which was acecpted as
a defect report against all C++ versions).
>constexpr int z = a[i]->C;
I think this is inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Manuel Köppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Köppen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92171
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105696
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> https://wg21.link/p2280r2 was accepted as a defect report against all
> versions of C++.
Note the correct link is https://wg21.link/p2280 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72756
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the paper that was acepted in the end is https://wg21.link/p2280 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> >constexpr int y = s0.C;
>
>
> The above is now valid due to https://wg21.link/p2280r2 (which was acecpted
> as a defect report against all C++ version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b7f203472d07a05d959a29638c7c95d98bf0c1c
commit r15-1826-g7b7f203472d07a05d959a29638c7c95d98bf0c1c
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to biggs from comment #3)
>
> The unused names are optimized out here and string_view is simply a
> contiguous array of characters not pointers.
Nope, it is still an array of pointers (and length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #5 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to biggs from comment #3)
> >
> > The unused names are optimized out here and string_view is simply a
> > contiguous array of characters not p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #9 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
Here I am providing some benchmark results to back up my claim that switching
to the integer modulo by a constant algorithm with 2 multiplication
instructions (which is the default in both Clan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to biggs from comment #5)
> So the argument here is that C23's constexpr does not permit this
> optimization because it does not allow constexpr pointers other than nullptr?
No I am saying the fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115768
--- Comment #7 from biggs at biggs dot xyz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> For C++ (well with GCC extensions obvious) this would be valid:
> ```
> static constexpr const char *names[] = {
> [CE_RED] = "RED",
> [CE_GREEN]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115770
Manuel Köppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Köppen
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
