https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Janko Dedic from comment #24)
> It seems like P2014 is no longer being pursued.
>
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/750#issuecomment-2657897866
I spoke with the author, the paper has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #24 from Janko Dedic ---
It seems like P2014 is no longer being pursued.
https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/750#issuecomment-2657897866
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newsigma at 163 dot com
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jankodedic2 at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fangzhuhe at 126 dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #20 from David Ledger ---
Yeah, your right. I had noticed the mistake and reduced the code without
thinking enough:
```CPP
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
struct overaligned { alignas(128) char padding[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> (In reply to David Ledger from comment #15)
> > This is a complete minimum reproduction, just to aid Iain Sandoe:
>
> This is well defined code? because I tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
basic.stc.dynamic.allocation/3 seems to be the important part here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Ledger from comment #15)
> This is a complete minimum reproduction, just to aid Iain Sandoe:
This is well defined code? because I thought operator new has alignment
requirements as defin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #16 from David Ledger ---
The above example produces the xmm instruction on a clearly misaligned value.
I was searching the assembly using:
```SH
#!/bin/bash
g++-11 main.cpp -std=c++2a -O3 -march=native -S
grep -E "vmovdqu\s%xmm0,\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
David Ledger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidledger at live dot com.au
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #14 from Luke Dalessandro ---
Thanks for the information Iain.
Is there something short-term where gcc could provide an "unimplemented"
failure or warning diagnostic for requests for coroutine frames with extended
alignment?
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
See the discussion at
https://www.mail-archive.com/cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org/msg222834.html
I wonder what this means for GCC here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2014r0.pdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note LLVM/clang has the same issue and there was a patch for the issue here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106248
I don't see the followup patch though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
so I think you might have found a defect in the C++ standard dealing with
coroutines. I looked and there is no mention of alignment when it comes to the
state of the coroutine at all even.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[diagnostic] basic.align#9 |coroutine frame is not
18 matches
Mail list logo
