https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115612
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(And it shouldn't be called *"combine"* at all, yadda yadda).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115612
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
> Thanks for filing this!
>
> For the given example, previously split1 splits ordered test into unordered
> test + xor, late-combine pass recombines them into or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-29
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115707
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115707
Bug ID: 115707
Summary: [15 regression] FAIL in gcc.target/aarch64/sve/sad_1.c
since gcc-15-863-ga3aeff4ce95b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115706
Bug ID: 115706
Summary: Compiling headers as header units fails depending on
order.
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100476
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-29
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115705
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This feels like a glibc issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115705
Bug ID: 115705
Summary: dubious macro definition ‘__attr_dealloc_fclose’
[-Winvalid-imported-macros]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 115704, which changed state.
Bug 115704 Summary: -Wstringop-overread and related warnings should print
inline stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115704
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115704
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||97048
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115704
Bug ID: 115704
Summary: -Wstringop-overread and related warnings should print
inline stack
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > We once had a very aggressive pass to do this as part of graphite
> > transforms,
> > it's on the GCC 4.7 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> We once had a very aggressive pass to do this as part of graphite transforms,
> it's on the GCC 4.7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/grap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106760
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50073ffae0a9b8feb9b36fdafdebd9885f6d7dc8
commit r15-1717-g50073ffae0a9b8feb9b36fdafdebd9885f6d7dc8
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95517
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115688
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> > That said, how does your patch handle the following test case?
> >
> > long __attribute__ ((target ("no-alt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
--- Comment #8 from Sean Murthy ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> Fixed for GCC 14.2, thanks for the bug report.
Neat. I just saw the issues is fixed in trunk on Compiler Explorer. Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
--- Comment #8 from Andi Kleen ---
Ah never mind. I ran it with the wrong option with -O3 it shows the warning.
Unfortunately the run time is very long so it will be difficult to minimize.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv*-*-* |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115703
Bug ID: 115703
Summary: [15 Regression] rv64gcv_zvl256b miscompile since
r15-1579-g792f97b44ff
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note clang produce the operator== but maybe incorrectly because the
static_assert fails ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So GCC is treating anonymous struct similar to anonymous unions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115364
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106760
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blubban at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115695
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
int f() {
short a = 0;
return (unsigned)a * sizeof(short);
}
```
The warning in GCC 9 and before was:
```
:4:16: warning: conversion to 'long unsigned int' from 'short int' may
cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115504
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15 Regression] |[13 Regression] template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115198
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a00a8d46ea6ff7130e2493e7bd9824e28e2509b7
commit r14-10358-ga00a8d46ea6ff7130e2493e7bd9824e28e2509b7
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115504
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6b115be1c392de415925282a38f28cd78cb6c35
commit r14-10359-ge6b115be1c392de415925282a38f28cd78cb6c35
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115358
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33a9c4dd5fcac7e3f5d835b35fe787126339dd2b
commit r14-10357-g33a9c4dd5fcac7e3f5d835b35fe787126339dd2b
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
D. Richard Hipp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drh at sqlite dot org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115697
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115698
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I looked into the driver code and '@' handling is early on and just expands
into the new arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485
--- Comment #12 from Jan Schultke ---
On a language evolution note, https://wg21.link/P2825 would let you detect
whether an equality comparison for enumerations is overloaded by checking
whether
> declcall(E{} == E{})
... is well-formed. If th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 115702, which changed state.
Bug 115702 Summary: Incorrect stringop-overflow warning with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115702
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||christian at zeek dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115702
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115702
Bug ID: 115702
Summary: Incorrect stringop-overflow warning with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115701
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|wrong code at -O1 and above |[11/12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114019
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115658
--- Comment #3 from Tom Honermann ---
In retrospect, I think I misunderstood Andrew's motivation for filing this
issue.
There is a difference of behavior between gcc and clang with regard to aliasing
of `char16_t` and `char32_t` with respect to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115668
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115668
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5e352addf4c17d28bcada42409881089c5d8088
commit r14-10356-gd5e352addf4c17d28bcada42409881089c5d8088
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115668
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b64a1051a927a65a9acefbbb5714a8118c320bc
commit r13-8877-g4b64a1051a927a65a9acefbbb5714a8118c320bc
Author: Jonathan Wake
/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240628 (experimental) (GCC)
[538] %
[538] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[539] %
[539] % gcctk -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Right, I need to handle "the source is a bit-field whose width w is less than
that of its type" as well; is_bitfield_expr_with_lowered_type doesn't do that.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03d3aeb0e0fa7dec9bd702cabf57ef73cdc32704
commit r15-1714-g03d3aeb0e0fa7dec9bd702cabf57ef73cdc32704
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115585
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52370c839edd04df86d3ff2b71fcdca0c7376a7f
commit r15-1716-g52370c839edd04df86d3ff2b71fcdca0c7376a7f
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fab60eaa94b50b1eea84f0d001004c851d4c781b
commit r15-1715-gfab60eaa94b50b1eea84f0d001004c851d4c781b
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
--- Comment #25 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac8c61b62e71ffdcaebfd4cfc03f58fe542855dd
commit r15-1713-gac8c61b62e71ffdcaebfd4cfc03f58fe542855dd
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
--- Comment #5 from Mital Ashok ---
Proposed patch doesn't seem to work with bool bit-fields (with width not-1):
```
struct X {
bool bf : 8;
} x;
signed char x_not_narrow{ x.bf };
```
Currently: Not narrowing
With patch:
```
test.cpp:4:29: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
This may implement that DR:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
@@ -1012,6 +1012,14 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t
complain,
if (TREE_CODE (ftype) == ENUMERAL_TYP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115688
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> bergner@ltcden2-lp1:ICE$ gcc -S -m64 -O2 -mcpu=power5 -mabi=no-altivec bug.c
> bug.c:3:1: internal compiler error: in rs6000_option_override_internal, at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107367
--- Comment #7 from cqwrteur ---
I see similar side effects like what if someone adds a print statement in the
operator++ or operator * in a contiguous iterator and etc.
If I am not allowed to use std::to_address, what’s the point?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107367
--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur ---
Your argument is not correct when you can just detect all the iterator methods
are noexcept. Plus, the standard does not need you to handle exceptions if
iterator throw it but to terminate.
Btw what is the point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115688
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #2)
> // 32 bit has altivec_abi unset, so that's why it doesn't ICE at -m64.
Ah yes, that does explain the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit!
...and that means it ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115673
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Still fails with the GOT alias set fix on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115688
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Something like that.
But why would we want to disable generation of VSX or VMX insns at all?
This is similar to disabling generation of popcntd insns if you do not like
those!
Having generation of V*X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115700
Bug ID: 115700
Summary: [10/11/12/13/14 regression] Bogus warning for
associate with assumed-length character array
Product: gcc
Version: 10.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115585
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|--disable-libstdcxx-verbose |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115652
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff6e8b7f09712bd7ddfcd2830b286421f23abef9
commit r15-1709-gff6e8b7f09712bd7ddfcd2830b286421f23abef9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
Bug 115635 depends on bug 115661, which changed state.
Bug 115661 Summary: [15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu
since r15-1599-g63512c72df09b4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115643
--- Comment #22 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
commit r15-1708-gc4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
Author: Evgeny Karpov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115635
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
commit r15-1708-gc4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
Author: Evgeny Karpov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115661
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
commit r15-1708-gc4b7b62bfa10816c1e08f0f9597d857f11379688
Author: Evgeny Karpov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Note it's going to be _way_ easier to tackle when we got rid of vcond{,u,eq}
since then the compares and the condition can be lowered separately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114137
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-28
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114137
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Hi Alexandre, not forgot about this (and thanks for the kind help). I'll let
you know when got more information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase:
typedef int v32si __attribute__((vector_size(128)));
void foo (v32si *a, v32si *b, v32si *c)
{
*c = *a < *b
? (v32si){-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,
-1,-1,-1,-1,-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115699
Bug ID: 115699
Summary: Anonymous structs should compare member-wise with
C++20 defaulted operator==
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115689
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94058
Mital Ashok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mital at mitalashok dot co.uk
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115697
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115640
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0192341a07b8ea30f631cf4afdc6fcf3fa7ce838
commit r15-1706-g0192341a07b8ea30f631cf4afdc6fcf3fa7ce838
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107367
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This optimization isn't valid if any iterator operations can throw, because
such an exception should terminate the loop early. Performing the algo on raw
pointers would alter the behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm still not willing to use that though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485
--- Comment #8 from Jan Schultke ---
It is a tiny bit pessimistic if it uses std::convertible_to instead of
std::__boolean_testable or what it was called.
I cannot come up with an example that produces a false positive though (which
is crucial
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
