http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #19 from Jörg Richter 2012-06-21 06:58:13
UTC ---
See also bug 53713. Hasn't been marked as a dup yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-21
06:57:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27672
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27672
pr53740.tar.bz2
Sources needed to reproduce it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-06-21 06:55:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27648 [details]
> gcc48-pr53706.patch
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem for me. Alex, what do you think about
> it?
With this pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
Bug #: 53740
Summary: [4.8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl bootstrap
failure with ada
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53736
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53667
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
Summary|Cray pointer: Wr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53739
Bug #: 53739
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/init/null1.C -std=c++11 happens even
though it should not be tested
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-mingw32
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53738
--- Comment #1 from Chirayu Chiripal
2012-06-21 03:26:13 UTC ---
Also Tried compiling it with:
gcc -Wall -Wextra
and
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
but the result was same.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53738
Bug #: 53738
Summary: Problem with pow() function when calculating power of
10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52637
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38607
François Bissey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fbissey at slingshot dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #1 from Stephane Carrez
2012-06-20 21:35:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 27670
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27670
Files to reproduce the bug
To reproduce the bug:
gnatchop gcc-bug.txt
gcc -c util-serialize-mappe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
Bug #: 53737
Summary: Assert_Failure sinfo.adb:1066 on a generic package
with an package as parameter (Ada Util)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39654
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn 2012-06-20
21:14:36 UTC ---
Strangely, someone else is reporting a runtime error with the same symbol:
exec(): 0509-036 Cannot load program a.out because of the following errors:
rtld: 0712-001 Symbol
_ZNSt8fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53732
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2012-06-20
20:41:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
It seems you have pinpointed it.
Unfortunately, my computer is broken at the moment, so that I have no way to
test myself, let alone propose a patch.
The purpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53723
--- Comment #6 from Seth Carnegie 2012-06-20
20:27:25 UTC ---
Actually I was using 4.7.1 and I did use g++ -v, I just made a mistake in
simplifying the code from the stackoverflow example. I compiled the
simplification with 4.7.1 but the SO examp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53736
--- Comment #1 from Stephane Carrez
2012-06-20 20:05:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27669
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27669
bug.ads testcase
A simple instantiation that shows the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53736
Bug #: 53736
Summary: Instantiation error for Indefinite_Hashed_Sets package
when using -gnatN switch
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse 2012-06-20
19:12:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I have now pushed all my refactorings into VRP,
Thanks.
> Can you adjust your patch with the double-double_int arithmetic stuff
> to that fact?
I'll look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxdebayser at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53734
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53734
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-20
19:04:17 UTC ---
G++ doesn't yet implement access-checking during template deduction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53735
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2012-06-20 18:58:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 27668
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27668
reduced source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53735
Bug #: 53735
Summary: thumb1 spill failure with -Os
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: assemble-failure, ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53734
Bug #: 53734
Summary: std::is_constructible fails to compile if copy
constructor is private
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53711
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40657
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40657
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53733
Bug #: 53733
Summary: [C++11][DR 1402] Move constructor/assignment operator
too often deleted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53730
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53732
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-20
17:19:39 UTC ---
Looking a bit deeper at the issue, the conditional code makes sense, but it
does not make sense that "subscript" is true. The code seems to get set via an
(earlier) call to gfc_add_loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53732
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 15:36:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> But I am not sure if a good library implementation shouldn't be always
> preferable to a byte-wise copy. We could, at least try to envision a way
> to retain an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-20
15:30:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Thanks for the no-include testcase Jon. Thus are we talking about the core
> defect mentioned by Daniel? Should move this discussion to a C++ issue.
Yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-20
15:26:06 UTC ---
Thanks for the no-include testcase Jon. Thus are we talking about the core
defect mentioned by Daniel? Should move this discussion to a C++ issue.
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Krügler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-20
15:26:06 UTC ---
Thanks for the no-include testcase Jon. Thus are we talking about the core
defect mentioned by Daniel? Should move this discussion to a C++ issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-20
15:23:06 UTC ---
By the way, the more I look into this issue the more I come to the conclusion
that making sure pair(pair&&) is defaulted (which has ABI implications) means
doing quite a number of non
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53729
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-20
15:20:29 UTC ---
Possibly a front end bug, not sure.
Here's a reduced form that G++ rejects, Clang accepts:
template
struct pair
{
constexpr pair(const pair&) = default;
pair(pair&&) = def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53730
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Hite 2012-06-20 15:20:00 UTC ---
Yes, switching away from the gold linker and rebuilding gcc solves the problem!
OK that's what I'll do.
I'm not sure if this should be considered resolved or if it counts as a bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-20
15:15:46 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Daniel. Thus I guess we should do this change and then also
implement core/1402 ASAP, because otherwise in many circumstances the users
would not be that happy. Are you wil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2012-06-20 15:10:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Yes, this is to be expected, because gcc currently does not implement
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1402
I think fixing that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
15:09:46 UTC ---
What we could do for the case in question is look at the maximum possible
value of c, derived from number-of-iteration analysis which should tell
us 8 because of the size of the te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53657
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53732
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-06-20
14:59:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Two scan-assembler directives with the same search string don't look for two
> instances of the same string, they just look for the same thing twice a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
Mikhail Veltishchev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dichlofos-mv at yandex dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53732
Bug #: 53732
Summary: "mismatching comparison operand types" on compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-20 14:53:58 UTC ---
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
>
> --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 14:43:11
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47903
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 14:46:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I've tried without static. Runtimes is still the same.
It doesn't match what I saw. On Atom D510:
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-regression/master/188261/usr/bin/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 14:43:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > I added executable testcase. Command line to compile
> > >
> > > gcc -g -ansi -O3 -ffast-math -msse2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
14:39:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 14:39:36 2012
New Revision: 188837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188837
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
14:36:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I added executable testcase. Command line to compile
> >
> > gcc -g -ansi -O3 -ffast-math -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -m32 -static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-06-20
14:34:32 UTC ---
I've tried without static. Runtimes is still the same.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-06-20
14:34:15 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jun 20 14:34:08 2012
New Revision: 188836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188836
Log:
gcc:
2012-06-20 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-06-20
14:30:47 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jun 20 14:30:39 2012
New Revision: 188835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188835
Log:
gcc:
2012-06-20 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #2 from Janis Johnson 2012-06-20
14:15:52 UTC ---
Two scan-assembler directives with the same search string don't look for two
instances of the same string, they just look for the same thing twice and pass
if that string only occurs o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
13:56:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 13:55:44 2012
New Revision: 188834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188834
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47903
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
13:56:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 13:55:44 2012
New Revision: 188834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188834
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
13:56:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 13:55:44 2012
New Revision: 188834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188834
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53721
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-20 13:30:21 UTC ---
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
>
> --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 12:46:57
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn 2012-06-20
13:25:31 UTC ---
Another feature of AIX is its garbage-collecting linker. The very first
implementation of GCC for AIX was forced to emit an extra symbol to tie the
text section to the data section t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52247
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52223
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52223
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52223
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
13:16:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 20 13:16:35 2012
New Revision: 188830
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188830
Log:
2012-06-20 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51517
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51410
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sethcarnegie at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53723
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49328
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48739
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47903
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53723
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 12:46:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Btw, I cannot reproduce the slowdown on 64bit and the 32bit memcpy in glibc
Which glibc are you using?
> simply does a rep movsb; for any size lower than 20 byte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33047
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53724
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-20 12:38:12
UTC ---
Something like this
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index e2f5740..0daf601 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -13879,7 +13879,8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53721
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-06-20 12:34:44 UTC ---
I agree that the example should be accepted. I would like to add one further
related example directly from the standard specification. The example from
[expr.prim.general] p3 is also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53726
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-20
12:31:22 UTC ---
Btw, I cannot reproduce the slowdown on 64bit and the 32bit memcpy in glibc
simply does a rep movsb; for any size lower than 20 bytes ... but as I have
been told rep movsb; setup co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53723
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
