[Bug c++/109963] ABI: unexpected layout ordering of `this` pointer in lambda capture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109963 Justin Lebar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #14 from Justin Lebar 2011-07-04 15:00:36 UTC --- Created attachment 24676 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24676 Test results from my core i7

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #13 from Justin Lebar 2011-07-04 14:40:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > Created attachment 24670 [details] > memcpy/memset testing script > > HJ, > can you please run the attached script with new glibc as > sh test_stringop 64

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #10 from Justin Lebar 2011-06-13 18:18:13 UTC --- Can I force gcc not to use its inlined version?

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Justin Lebar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||justin.lebar+bug at gmail

[Bug target/46357] Unnecessary movzx instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46357 --- Comment #2 from Justin Lebar 2010-11-08 17:08:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > We always use zero/sign-extending moves to avoid partial register stalls. Sure, but the whole instruction on line 10 is unnecessary.

[Bug c/46357] New: Unnecessary movzx instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46357 Summary: Unnecessary movzx instruction Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug web/46031] Atomic Builtins page should indicate that 16-byte compare-and-swap is available with -mcex16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46031 --- Comment #4 from Justin Lebar 2010-10-15 05:54:28 UTC --- > Actually it says the target processors might not include all of the builtins. Maybe I'm not making sense. My point is that there's a builtin (*) that is supported by some target pro

[Bug web/46031] Atomic Builtins page should indicate that 16-byte compare-and-swap is available with -mcex16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46031 --- Comment #2 from Justin Lebar 2010-10-15 05:30:20 UTC --- "Not all operations are supported by all target processors" isn't the same as "not all operations supported by target processors are listed here." If you want to be vague and say "some

[Bug web/46031] New: Atomic Builtins page should indicate that 16-byte compare-and-swap is available with -mcex16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46031 Summary: Atomic Builtins page should indicate that 16-byte compare-and-swap is available with -mcex16 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal