[Bug libstdc++/88466] [C++17] Support std::hardware_destructive_interference_size and std:: hardware_constructive_interference_size

2018-12-12 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88466 --- Comment #4 from Duarte --- Oh, I see; thanks for pointing that out.

[Bug libstdc++/88466] [C++17] Support std::hardware_destructive_interference_size and std:: hardware_constructive_interference_size

2018-12-12 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88466 --- Comment #2 from Duarte --- I don't think it should be the min size. For example, architectures with 64bit cache lines can have prefetchers that immediately fetch adjacent cache lines, in which case the value should be 128. One option could b

[Bug libstdc++/88466] New: Support std::hardware_destructive_interference_size and std:: hardware_constructive_interference_size

2018-12-12 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: duarte at scylladb dot com Target Milestone: --- The following should compile: #include struct x { alignas(std

[Bug c++/85646] [7/8/9 Regression] Incorrect lambda visibility with -fvisibility=hidden

2018-05-04 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85646 --- Comment #2 from Duarte --- I forgot to add that it compiles successfully without -fvisibility=hidden, and without the template.

[Bug c++/85646] New: Incorrect lambda visibility with -fvisibility=hidden

2018-05-04 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: duarte at scylladb dot com Target Milestone: --- Consider the following program: template void foo() { struct inner { inner() { (void)([this] { }); } }; } int main() { foo

[Bug c++/85642] New: Wrong implicit exception-specification with std::optional

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: duarte at scylladb dot com Target Milestone: --- Apologies if this has already been reported, but I couldn't find a matching report. Consider the following program: #include str

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #17 from Duarte --- It also fails on GCC 8.1. This is the reproducer: template void foo() { struct inner { inner() { ([this] { }); } }; } int main() { foo(); } It fails when compiled with -fvisib

[Bug libstdc++/84769] variant::get(): unscoped call to get

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769 --- Comment #13 from Duarte --- Awesome, thank you!

[Bug libstdc++/84769] variant::get(): unscoped call to get

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769 --- Comment #8 from Duarte --- I tried to go ahead and send a patch for this (should be on the gcc-patches and libstdc++ lists).

[Bug libstdc++/84769] variant::get(): unscoped call to get

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769 --- Comment #6 from Duarte --- I think that calls to get<0> should be scoped, for example in visit().

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

2018-05-03 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 Duarte changed: What|Removed |Added CC||duarte at scylladb dot com --- Comment #16

[Bug libstdc++/84769] New: variant::get(): unscoped call to get

2018-03-08 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: duarte at scylladb dot com Target Milestone: --- In the implementation of T& get(variant& v) and friends, the calls to the size_t-templated overloads of get is unscoped, like in [1]. This can lead to surprising situati

[Bug sanitizer/81021] stack-use-after-scope false positive error with exceptions

2017-07-10 Thread duarte at scylladb dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81021 --- Comment #12 from Duarte --- (In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #10) > Oh, and a binary that triggers it is build/release/tests/view_schema_test. Should be build/debug/tests/view_schema_test. For reference, other binaries affected by this i