[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 --- Comment #10 from Oliver Schönrock --- Sorry, should have made that clear.. yes, appears to be a regression between gcc-10 and gcc-12

[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 --- Comment #7 from Oliver Schönrock --- I did some additional testing on older distributions. On debian 11, bullseye, oldstable, we have gcc version 10.2.1 20210110 (Debian 10.2.1-6) I noticed that my patch DID NOT apply and the leak is NO

[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 --- Comment #4 from Oliver Schönrock --- Is there anything I can do to help move this forward?

[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 --- Comment #3 from Oliver Schönrock --- Realised the link to my repo with demo code was incorrect. Here is the correct one: https://github.com/oschonrock/tbbleak

[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 --- Comment #1 from Oliver Schönrock --- Created attachment 59419 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59419&action=edit patch which solves the problem this patch applies cleanly to libstdc++ 13.2 and 14.2 and also to head I bel

[Bug libstdc++/117276] std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 Oliver Schönrock changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/oneapi-s

[Bug libstdc++/117276] New: std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117276 Bug ID: 117276 Summary: std::sort(par_unseq ,...) leaks memory when called repeatedly Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/96830] GCC does not complain about redeclaration with inconsistent requires clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96830 Oliver Schönrock changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oschonrock at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/94566] conversion between std::strong_ordering and int

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566 --- Comment #10 from Oliver Schönrock --- I agree the switch optimisation is better, but... shouldn't std::bit_cast prevent incorrect casting with different underlying implementaion? (ie if the size doesn't match, and the size could be deduced

[Bug tree-optimization/94566] conversion between std::strong_ordering and int

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94566 --- Comment #8 from Oliver Schönrock --- how about: #include #include #include int conv3(std::strong_ordering s){ return std::bit_cast(s); } std::strong_ordering conv4(int i){ return std::bit_cast(static_cast(i)); } conv3(std::stro

[Bug c++/104616] New: -Wconversion diagnostic on operator `/` with short ints, only when -fsanitize=undefined is passed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104616 Bug ID: 104616 Summary: -Wconversion diagnostic on operator `/` with short ints, only when -fsanitize=undefined is passed Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED