[Bug c++/115728] Feature Request: inline assembly improvements for C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728 --- Comment #4 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- (In reply to ak from comment #3) > The constexpr asm support is in trunk. It supports templates. > > > >The second is I want finer grain control over marking memory regions as > >needing

[Bug c++/115728] Feature Request: inline assembly improvements for C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728 --- Comment #2 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I think there's (pending?) support to allow the asm text to be generated by > constexpr evaluation. Not sure if that will help. I would have

[Bug c++/115728] New: Feature Request: inline assembly improvements for C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115728 Bug ID: 115728 Summary: Feature Request: inline assembly improvements for C++ Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug c++/113527] New: Missed optimization [[assume]] attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113527 Bug ID: 113527 Summary: Missed optimization [[assume]] attribute Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 --- Comment #6 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- Technically, I suppose it is. I do reference those things in the original code. :-) But it is sort of annoying to get the error when I can just edit the assembly and clip out the offending

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 --- Comment #2 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- Created attachment 54238 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54238&action=edit Assembly output from compiler

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 --- Comment #1 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- Created attachment 54237 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54237&action=edit Assembly file containing _start

[Bug c++/108361] New: Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 Bug ID: 108361 Summary: Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64 Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug target/108337] Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 --- Comment #5 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Yes it affects every function. There might be another way to use attribute > to specific that only main needs this treatment. Or better yet add

[Bug target/108337] Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/108337] New: Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 Bug ID: 108337 Summary: Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64 Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/2316] g++ fails to overload on language linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316 --- Comment #55 from eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- C++ may get an ABI change one of these days. It needs one in order to have a properly efficient unique_ptr. Since that ABI change would involve who calls destructors and C doesn't have destr