Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
The standard library currently contains optimized versions of std::move and
std::move_backward for std::deque iterators, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #15 from Morwenn ---
That was insanely fast, thanks a lot! :)
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
Given the following simple code:
bool foobar(unsigned __int128 lhs, unsigned __int128 rhs) {
return lhs < rhs;
}
GCC generates branchful code for x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82470
--- Comment #2 from Morwenn ---
Shouldn't it? My reading of the standard (at least from Tim Song's online
version) is that the lookup for a get member function is intended. Here is the
relevant excerpt from [dcl.struct.bind]:
> The unqualified-i
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
Here is a simple example of failing code:
struct foobar
{
template
int get() { ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70328
--- Comment #3 from Morwenn ---
Looks like providing a testcase will be hard: I switched to GCC 7.1 since then,
and can't reproduce the bug anymore, be it in C++14 or C++17 mode. That said, a
few things have changed since then and they may be inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69565
--- Comment #3 from Morwenn ---
It was a modified version of the following benchmark for sorting algorithms:
https://github.com/Morwenn/cpp-sort/blob/master/benchmarks/bench.cpp
I benchmarked the library's heap_sort (which is basically a copy-pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70328
Morwenn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69565
--- Comment #1 from Morwenn ---
The labels on the image are cropped, but each label corresponds to a specific
distribution of the data. The full names are as follows:
Shuffled
Shuffled (16 values)
All equal
Ascending
Descending
Pipe organ
Push f
: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37526&action=edit
Benchmark heapsort for libc++ and libstdc++.
While implementing
: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
The current error message when trying to initialize a fixed-size C array with
too many elements (with both gcc and g
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
To be honest, the title fails to accurately describe the problem. Anyway, this
sample does the job nicely
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
I had the following piece of code in one of my projects:
template
constexpr std::size_t iterator_category_value;
g
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
If have some algorithms that use an extensive number of conditional swaps like
this (a few hundreds I guess):
if (y < x)
{
std::swap(x, y);
}
I thou
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
I tried to write a recursive variable template with non-type template
parameters (booleans in my case) and got an internal
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
I was trying to replace structures with a single value member by variable
templates but it seems that their support still isn't complete enough to
support my use ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63717
Morwenn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63717
--- Comment #1 from Morwenn ---
I forgot to remove the outside-class =default in the second example, it should
be:
struct foo
{
unsigned value;
foo() = default;
foo(unsigned value):
value(value)
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
I have this minimal test case:
struct foo
{
unsigned value;
foo();
foo(unsigned value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56991
--- Comment #3 from Morwenn 2013-04-18 08:12:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't see the compiler *crashing*, I see it *rejecting* the snippet.
Indeed, sorry for the poor formulation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56991
Bug #: 56991
Summary: constexpr std::initializer_list crashes on too complex
initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
21 matches
Mail list logo
