++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asorenji at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I have simple test code, that just sorting array of string_view wrapped in
another class. This array contain list of "1","2","3","4",&quo
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asorenji at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not sure if this bug or not, but in regex ((a)|(b))* with ECMAScript flavor
and text "ab" I get second and third g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
--- Comment #4 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> But it's not enabled by -Wall7
>
> Maybe QtCreator should be fixed instead.
Hmm, compile output in QtCreator:
g++ -c -pipe -g -Wall -W -fPIC -DQT_QML_DEBUG -I../t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91407
--- Comment #2 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Is there a reason you need to use -Wnon-virtual-dtor ?
QtCreator with -Wall as default compile option. Yes, I can set custom compile
options, or use #pragma GCC di
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asorenji at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Okay, attempt of delete polymorphic class without virtual destructor, lead to
UB. But, I want trivially destructible class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86050
--- Comment #6 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #5)
> Just tested with 8.3.0 version on the other PC, same there, i.e. stack space
> does not increase when built with -O2. So this was fixed at least since
> 8.3.0.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: asorenji at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I have deep tail-recursion and try check how many bytes it consumed. Algorithm
for this very simple - pointer to variable in main function minus pointer to
variable in current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #15 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> What do you mean by "same problem"? The original testcase does not produce a
> warning with GCC 6.3.0
No, this warning still appear if (and only if) you use -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Aso Renji changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asorenji at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
