[Bug c++/95608] New: c++20 wrong code for defaulted equality comparison on array member variables

: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The generated code does not actually compare the content of the array. It does with clang and msvc

[Bug rtl-optimization/57193] New: suboptimal register allocation for SSE registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193 Bug #: 57193 Summary: suboptimal register allocation for SSE registers Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/53669] New: suboptimal small switch - 3-way jump with only 1 comparison

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53669 Bug #: 53669 Summary: suboptimal small switch - 3-way jump with only 1 comparison Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/53979] New: (a^b^b) not simplified to (a) (in combination with CSE??)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53979 Bug #: 53979 Summary: (a^b^b) not simplified to (a) (in combination with CSE??) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/53117] New: missed-optimization: worse code for 'x <= 0' compared to 'x < 0'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117 Bug #: 53117 Summary: missed-optimization: worse code for 'x <= 0' compared to 'x < 0' Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/53117] missed-optimization: worse code for 'x <= 0' compared to 'x < 0'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117 --- Comment #3 from Wouter Vermaelen 2012-04-25 15:30:42 UTC --- @Jakub: At first I was puzzled by your comment. But after some investigation I found out that this 'optimization' is indeed not possible when the subtraction would underflow. So you

[Bug c++/59071] New: sse2 intrinsics and constant expressions

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com gcc-4.8.2 with -O0 rejects the following code. With -O1 it works fine. Gcc-4.6, 4.7 and clang also work fine. I *believe* the stuff below is a constant expression, so it should compile (even without

[Bug c++/81901] false-positive -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81901 --- Comment #2 from Wouter Vermaelen --- Euhm, i=0x30 should not enter case 0x00. (Or did you mean the analysis pass that produces the warning). This code should not store anything to a[]. (I know this reduced function is useless/obfuscated. The

[Bug libstdc++/63500] New: bug in debug version of std::make_move_iterator?

: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com Is the following a bug in the debug version of std::make_move_iterator or is it a bug in my code? It compiles fine with older gcc versions (both debug and non-debug). But when using a

[Bug tree-optimization/63864] New: Missed optimization, related to SRA(??)

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com Hi, In my code I replaced some 'manual' vector/matrix calculations with (inlined) function calls using vector/matrix types. When using clang both approaches result in nearly

[Bug libstdc++/101049] New: std::variant: missed optimization in std::visit() on more than one variant

: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- // https://godbolt.org/z/T8f89fq1z // -- #include struct Base {}; struct

[Bug tree-optimization/118557] New: -Wstringop-overflow false positive for span on array/string_view

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Hi, I am aware of bug#88443 which tracks a lot of other reports about Wstringop-overflow false positives. I