[Bug c++/86165] New: std::regex crashes when matching long lines.

2018-06-15 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: holger.seelig at yahoo dot de Target Milestone: --- std::regex crashes when matching long lines. Here is an example: #include #include int main() { std::string s (100'000, '*'); std::smatch m;

[Bug c++/86164] New: std::regex crashes when matching long lines

2018-06-15 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: holger.seelig at yahoo dot de Target Milestone: --- std::regex crashes when matching long lines. Here is an example: #include #include int main() { std::string s (100'000, '*'); std::smatch m;

[Bug c++/86163] New: std::regex crashes when matching long lines

2018-06-15 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: holger.seelig at yahoo dot de Target Milestone: --- std::regex crashes when matching long lines. Here is an example: #include #include int main() { std::string s (100'000, '*'); std::smatch m;

[Bug c++/77858] std::polar throws an exception if rho is negative

2016-10-05 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77858 --- Comment #3 from Holger Seelig --- Thanks for your response I have looked into c++config.h and figured out that __glibcxx_assert depends on the definition of_GLIBCXX_PARALLEL, that I have defined. Probably better for me not to use this defini

[Bug c++/77858] New: std::polar throws an exception if rho is negative

2016-10-04 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: holger.seelig at yahoo dot de Target Milestone: --- I think it is not right to throw an exception if rho is negative. The result is well defined for polar representation if rho is negative if polar is something like this

[Bug c++/61621] Normal enum switch slower than test case.

2014-06-27 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61621 --- Comment #2 from Holger Seelig --- To my understanding and what I know is that a switch like the following: switch (i) { case 10: func_a(); break; case 11: func_b(); break; case 12: func_c(); break

[Bug c++/61621] New: Normal enum switch slower than test case.

2014-06-26 Thread holger.seelig at yahoo dot de
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: holger.seelig at yahoo dot de I detected that a normal enum switch is 1.5 up to 3 times slower than a 'double' enum switch. Below I created a test case for you. Unkomment the marked lines to get better performa