https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108645
--- Comment #1 from Evan Teran ---
To further experiment, i factored out `std::accumulate`:
```
#include
#include
#include
#include
void print_v(const char *rem, const std::vector &v) {
std::cout << rem;
for (const std::str
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: eteran at alum dot rit.edu
Target Milestone: ---
I encountered an interesting change in behavior today involving playing with
std::move_iterator types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93711
--- Comment #1 from Evan Teran ---
As a follow-up, it appears that the optimization level is a factor. I only get
the ICE in my builds which don't pass a -O flag.
Here's a live example that can be experimented with:
https://godbolt.org/z/zAEcQd
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: eteran at alum dot rit.edu
Target Milestone: ---
This is a little hard to explain clearly, but I'll do my best.
I have a container class that I want to make properly allocator awar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #3 from Evan Teran ---
@Andrew,
I hadn't seen that they were supported, I stand corrected. However that
particular feature was for example purposes. Any unsupported feature would do.
@Marc,
A quick read of that page shows a pretty g
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: eteran at alum dot rit.edu
I was recently thinking about how GCC sets __cplusplus to 201103L when
-std=c++11 yet doesn't (and may not ever) fully support every single corner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48119
Summary: -Wtype-limits should warn when bit masking cannot
possibly be true due to type size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
