[Bug c++/66701] __cxxabiv1::__cxa_pure_virtual - can it take an argument of the pointer to the function that was called, please?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66701 Jason McG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug c++/66701] __cxxabiv1::__cxa_pure_virtual - can it take an argument of the pointer to the function that was called, please?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66701 Jason McG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/66701] New: __cxxabiv1::__cxa_pure_virtual - can it take an argument of the pointer to the function that was called, please?

: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jmcguiness at liquidcapital dot com Target Milestone: --- I am aware of the ability to modify the handler for the

[Bug c++/66584] gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584 --- Comment #8 from Jason McG --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) ... > compiler developer. This is the first time I have seen a non-compiler > developer care about documenting gcc heuristics. Note there is no one paper. ... See comm

[Bug c++/66584] gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584 --- Comment #7 from Jason McG --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > If someone cares so much about the static branch predictor, they would be a ... I am not a compiler developer and I do care about this in the code I work upon. I oc

[Bug c++/66584] gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584 Jason McG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/66584] gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584 --- Comment #4 from Jason McG --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2) > What would you like us to document exactly? How are we supposed to track ... Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking that you point out to me in the gcc documentation wh

[Bug c++/66584] gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584 --- Comment #1 from Jason McG --- (In reply to Jason McG from comment #0) I got my static bp summaries wrong, corrected: > void foo(int i) { > switch(i) { > case 1: bar1(); // gcc: less likely (same as default) | icc: most likely >

[Bug c++/66584] New: gcc differs in static, branch-prediction cost from icc in switch.

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jmcguiness at liquidcapital dot com Target Milestone: --- This means that code optimised for icc is sub-optimal for icc and the reverse is true. I feel that this feature should be

[Bug c++/66573] Unexpected change in static, branch-prediction cost from O1 to O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573 --- Comment #2 from Jason McG --- If I try with this code: #define likely(x) __builtin_expect((x),1) #define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect((x),0) extern void bar1(); extern void bar2(); void foo(bool i) { // if (i) if (likely(i))

[Bug c++/66573] Unexpected change in static, branch-prediction cost from O1 to O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573 --- Comment #1 from Jason McG --- Note that clang++ for all tested versions (3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.6 (rc2), 3.7 (experimental)) produce the same assembler output for -O1, -O2 & -O3: foo(bool):# @foo(

[Bug c++/66573] New: Unexpected change in static, branch-prediction cost from O1 to O2.

Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: jmcguiness at liquidcapital dot com Target Milestone: --- For the following versions of gcc: 4.8.2, 4.9.0 and 5.10 with the following code sequence: extern void bar1(); extern void