https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81159
Nikolay Orliuk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||virkony at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #9 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Yes. Return value optimization blocked by abusing std::move also close. Somehow
I had feeling that I saw something similar from gcc in pre-C++11 times.
Regarding sample:
struct X {
X() { }
X(const X&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const Frame& x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #3 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const Frame& x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #4 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Hello
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const F
major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: virkony at gmail dot com
#include
using namespace std;
void foo()
{
cout << "x" << endl; // ok
cout << 'x' << endl; // kills tai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #1 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
In 4.7.3 that code works, but changing it to
void foo()
{
cout << "x" << endl; // ok
cout << 'x' << endl; // kills tail-call elimination in gcc 4.8.2
struct {} bar; // kills tail-call elimination
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
My 4.5.4 built without graphite support.
Both 4.7.3 and 4.8.2 built with cloog 0.17.0 and isl 0.11.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #4 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Andrew Pinski, as long as address of variable isn't taken out of scope of
function that is being tail-call optimized there is no need to worry about it
and it is safe to optimize. Am I wrong?
If stdc++ lib c
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: virkony at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It would be nice to have something like -Wno-effect which will issue warnings
on usage of std::move for objects that cannot be moved.
See also http://stackoverflow.com/q
10 matches
Mail list logo
