|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from François Dumont ---
I agree with Jonathan, this use case is showing that the optimization is not
Standard compliant. I'll got it removed shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114316
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90276
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Is there any unmentioned prerequisite to reproduce this bug ? I cannot.
Maybe thanks to PR11477 this PR could be closed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112477
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #20 from François Dumont ---
I run make check-c++ before and after my patch and I see no regression. I even
have less failures with the patch even if I haven't check yet why.
So I think the patch is quite safe, just waiting for valid
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When spellcheck is trying to find out what mistake the dev made inline
namespace are not considered.
To reproduce you just need to build g++/libstdc++ with:
--enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #17 from François Dumont ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
>
> many of the c++ fails are of this form:
>
> contracts-tmpl-spec1.C:(.text+0x6f): undefined reference to
> `handle_contract_violation(std::experimental::cont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #14 from François Dumont ---
Good news then.
On my side I only had some failures due to a faulty friend declaration in
gnu-versioned-namespace mode in for which I've submitted a patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2023-Au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont ---
This is because you are facing the PR65762 issue. I just attached a path
proposal to it that you need to apply too to be able to run your test. You'll
be even able to simply use --disable-libstdcxx-dual-ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65762
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 55834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55834&action=edit
Patch proposal
Here is a proposal that I'll submit on libstdc++ mailing list once PR83077 is
fixed. Note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
For sure _Hash_node layout didn't change, that's why I couldn't think of any
abi issue here.
I see that you already had the solution ! It was some kind of test then, I
failed :-).
Did you try it ? If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Sure, if you follow the email thread you'll see my latest patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/628399.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91263
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107189
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|RESOLVED
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
I think it has been fixed by:
commit 63d182fb86e47323ac50d9368845d712e1f7da89
Author: François Dumont
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Code looks
|13.0
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99402
--- Comment #13 from François Dumont ---
Fixed on gcc-10 branch by this commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=ab83ce42ea0b2fbc09d51b7bd5e69905dcaa2041.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99402
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Thanks for the feedback.
If this is still a problem for you after this enhancement you should perhaps
try the _Power2_rehash_policy provided as an extension. In
testsuite/23_containers/unordered_set/insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98466
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83938
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
After further investigation the unordered containers are also suffering from a
problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
The core issue here is that unordered_map key type is std::string while you
insert const char* which explains the temporary.
In f2 you use insert(Pair&&) method so a temporary is generated but then moved
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jan 9 05:40:08 2020
New Revision: 280028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect unordered container move assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Jan 7 21:01:37 2020
New Revision: 279967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect container move assignment
*
||2020-01-06
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
I confirm. I
||2019-12-19
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
I take it !
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
This problem has already been fixed while upgrading std::list::remove signature
for C++17.
The fix is
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Patch awaiting on mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-06/msg00097.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed May 8 13:03:32 2019
New Revision: 271011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/90277
* te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sat May 4 07:41:39 2019
New Revision: 270870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing PR libstdc++/90277 reference.
Modified:
trunk/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Mar 8 05:53:09 2019
New Revision: 269479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/89477
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89608
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Mar 8 05:37:50 2019
New Revision: 269478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/89608
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Nov 28 06:27:28 2018
New Revision: 266543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-28 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Nov 28 06:19:38 2018
New Revision: 266542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-28 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Nov 27 21:21:51 2018
New Revision: 266528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-27 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Nov 6 20:20:06 2018
New Revision: 265851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-06 John Bytheway
PR libstdc++/87872
* incl
||2018-11-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
All this reflection looks perfectly fine to me, thanks reporting it.
Don't you want to sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Sep 21 20:39:07 2018
New Revision: 264494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-21 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/87135
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Rehash policy has been reviewed, rehash will take place only when reserved size
is overwhelmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Sep 18 20:36:16 2018
New Revision: 264413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-18 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/87135
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Aug 22 18:51:25 2018
New Revision: 263786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-22 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/68222
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-07-24
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 20:51:27 2018
New Revision: 262455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 20:48:02 2018
New Revision: 262454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 05:14:36 2018
New Revision: 262430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Jul 4 18:13:11 2018
New Revision: 262417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-04 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/86272
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri May 25 16:40:55 2018
New Revision: 260761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/85768
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 44187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44187&action=edit
Remove backtrace usage during bootstrap.
I wonder if this patch could fix the bootstrap ? I try to avoid the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon May 21 16:51:47 2018
New Revision: 260478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-21 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/85845
* in
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71181
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68303
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Even if I always considered unordered containers to be high volume containers
that's an interesting idea.
As this is a pretty old entry I guess I'll have to try it myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Mar 20 21:45:14 2018
New Revision: 258693
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258693&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/84998
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Jan 9 21:05:10 2018
New Revision: 256396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/83709
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Dec 28 05:37:54 2017
New Revision: 256018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 20 21:53:25 2017
New Revision: 255904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/82522
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Dec 18 21:59:17 2017
New Revision: 255789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/80761
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82558
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Oct 16 05:44:03 2017
New Revision: 253776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/82558
* in
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81064
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81064
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sun Jul 23 08:41:35 2017
New Revision: 250458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-23 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/81064
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80183
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> I think this is my fault, I asked François to remove a store to _M_color
> that I thought was redundant.
I was surprised that _M_color wasn't move along with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Ok, at least it confirms what I thought about builtins. So the problem is
rather a buggy target.
Even if so I'll try to find an alternative approach to avoid snprintf usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 39984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39984&action=edit
Stop using __builtin_snprintf until __has_builtin is supported.
Could you try this patch ? Until we have __ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71640
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Jun 27 20:41:59 2016
New Revision: 237803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-27 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/71640
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71181
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Jun 20 20:04:25 2016
New Revision: 237617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/71181
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71181
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
I guess you are talking about 61667.
I think this report is quite new. At the moment reserve is implemented as
proposed by the Standard but I agree with Alexey that demonstrated behavior is
counterintuitiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #50 from François Dumont ---
This performance issue is a result of fixing:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
It resulted in many more modulo operations and so expensive float divisions.
I plan to commit an alternat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Not sure it is a regression. Of course before the patch the operator was called
in namespace std so your operator was considered. Now we are using intermediate
functor that are not in std namespace so your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Aug 25 20:27:03 2015
New Revision: 227189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-24 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/60519
* in
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Symbols are now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64657
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sat May 23 11:17:38 2015
New Revision: 223605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-23 François Dumont fdum...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR libstdc+
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
