https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16186
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85784
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #12 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> (In reply to trashyankes from comment #10)
>
> Which GCC are you using? GCC 8.2 generates:
GCC Explorer :D
g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 9.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #10 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Fixed for GCC 9, GCC 8.3 and GCC 7.4.
One question, I look on test case and see:
```
f1():
xor eax, eax
xor edx, edx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
--- Comment #1 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
btw how reduce "Importance" of this bug?
Right now it have same level as bug that could break my code.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: trashyankes at wp dot pl
Target Milestone: ---
Compiler output:
```
24 | static_assert(std::is_same::value,"eee");
| ^~~
```
Range mark only `std` instead of whole expression. At least is s
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: trashyankes at wp dot pl
Target Milestone: ---
Test case: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/58JsxE
```
struct A
{
int b[4];
};
struct B
{
char a[12];
int b;
};
struct C
{
char a[16];
};
A f1(int i)
{
return { };
}
B f2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80093
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
--- Comment #3 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Can you attach the source please? These stupid Web 2.0 sites do not allow
> to save it to a file.
Code:
```
#include
#include
struct alig
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: trashyankes at wp dot pl
Target Milestone: ---
During some experiments with toy programs I find out that GCC do not do any
horizontal adding for xmm registers.
Some benchmark code:
http://quick-bench.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80093
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
```
#include
int foo (std::mt19937* x)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution k(0, 99);
for (auto i = 0; i < 1'000'000'000; ++i)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution y(0, 99);
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: trashyankes at wp dot pl
Target Milestone: ---
We have two functions:
```
#include
int foo (std::mt19937* x)
{
for (auto i = 0; i < 1'000'000'000
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: trashyankes at wp dot pl
-->8>8>8>8>8--
template
int F() { return Y; }
template
void func(int i)
{
//internal compiler error: in type_dependent_expression_p, at cp/pt.c:19969
constexpr int (*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57765
--- Comment #3 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
I see, they fix wording in final version, but meaning didnt change (at last if
I understand it correctly).
"(...) primary class template or alias template is a template parameter pack,
it sha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57765
trashyankes at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trashyankes at wp dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52366
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2012-02-25 14:46:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> dup of PR 52315 ?
after long thoughts, its indeed, dup of PR 52315.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52366
Bug #: 52366
Summary: [c++11] static constexpr function cant initialize
static constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
Bug #: 52343
Summary: [C++11] alias-definition dont work in
`template` params type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2012-01-31 17:04:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suppose you would want to annotate a specific call, not necessarily _all_
> calls to loop (those from main).
Im interested in calls from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
Bug #: 52067
Summary: force sibling call optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
--- Comment #1 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2011-11-23 18:34:43 UTC ---
I find easy workaround this bug.
---
---
template class M>
struct m
{
template
struct _inner_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
Bug #: 51180
Summary: [C++0x][C++11] inner class alias-definition variadic
template error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51120
Bug #: 51120
Summary: [C++0x][C++11] name alias `using` dont need Semicolon
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50837
Bug #: 50837
Summary: [c++0x] static_assert and constexpr in template class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
Bug #: 50830
Summary: [c++0x] Variadic template, inner class error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #11 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2011-10-19 16:35:06 UTC ---
it will be possible to add better waring/error in this case?
is complicity misleading when you use `static const` or `static constexpr` for
long time and when you try get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Bug #: 50785
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] static constexpr double undefined
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
30 matches
Mail list logo
