https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
--- Comment #11 from Kern Sibbald ---
I recently discussed both of these "optimizations" with Bjarne Stroustrup and
his comment about deleting the memset() when overriding the new() functions
was:
Looks like a bug to me
His comment about del
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
--- Comment #10 from Kern Sibbald ---
(In reply to anton from comment #8)
It is not productive or conductive to good relations for me to tell packagers
how to do their job. The fact is that very few of them never test the packages
they release n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
--- Comment #9 from Kern Sibbald ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
Your wipppesnapper comments that are personally insulting are not at all
helpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #23 from Kern Sibbald ---
In response to the last post of Jonathan Wakely.
Thanks, that is the first time someone on the gcc side has said something that
makes sense. Of course, possibly I missed or misunderstood previous arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #17 from Kern Sibbald ---
It is pretty difficult to argue with the developers because they know the
"rules", better than most programmers. However, here in my opinion they used
very poor judgement, by implementing a change that they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
--- Comment #6 from Kern Sibbald ---
As you say, everything has been said and in any case, it is clear that you are
going to stick with the current compiler behavior. What you have failed to
understand is that I do very well understand that certa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #12 from Kern Sibbald ---
Yes, I clearly understand your point. My responses were meant for the project
were not directed at you. Hopefully someone will consider taking your advice of
not making this the default. It may be difficult
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #10 from Kern Sibbald ---
Thanks for your definition of "undetermined" behavior. The problem here is
that at the time the compiler applied its optimization we were just in the
process of creating the object as is permitted by the C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71892
--- Comment #2 from Kern Sibbald ---
Yes, we are aware of the option and how to fix the problem. The issue is that
this optimization at low levels of -O1 and -O2 is not reasonable, and it is
unreasonable and irresponsible to make such changes. J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #7 from Kern Sibbald ---
Just to be clear:
- This change might be appropriate for higher level of optimization, but is not
appropriate as a default for -O2 and -O1.
- There is no undefined behavior here. We override the new operator
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kern at sibbald dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The optimizations that you made to g++ 6.0 are not reasonable since they create
programming bugs. This applies to two optimizations you have made. One
disallowing this to be tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
Kern Sibbald changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kern at sibbald dot com
--- Comment #5
12 matches
Mail list logo
