http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #17 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-02 13:39:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Sep 2 13:39:22 2011
New Revision: 178475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178475
Log:
2011-09-02 Paolo Carlini
Mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-02
13:26:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm finishing testing this.
Looks good, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25178|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-02
12:33:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Doesn't _Base_bitset<1> also need a special case for
> _Nb==_GLIBCXX_BITSET_BITS_PER_WORD ?
You are right, got confused by the signedness.
> I think we c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-02
12:23:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 25178 [details]
> Work in progress patch for the _M_are_all_aux issue
>
> I'm considering doing something like this: what do you think? C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-02
12:08:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 25178
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25178
Work in progress patch for the _M_are_all_aux issue
I'm considering doing something like this: what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-02
10:59:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (by the way, if you can see a neat enough way to improve _M_are_all_aux, you
> are welcome to propose it! I'm definitely not an expert in this area, and when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-02
10:41:52 UTC ---
(by the way, if you can see a neat enough way to improve _M_are_all_aux, you
are welcome to propose it! I'm definitely not an expert in this area, and when
I implemented it, I remembe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-02 10:28:40 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Sep 2 10:28:36 2011
New Revision: 178463
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178463
Log:
2011-09-02 Paolo Carlini
Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25174|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-02
09:37:55 UTC ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #6)
> Looks better indeed. I think the compiler should be responsible for optimizing
> x&~0UL, not the library. I'll have to check that bitset<32>(x).count()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-02
08:03:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This one is much better, and actually should lead to slightly better code than
> C++98, because we don't do anything if _Nw > 1 (the 32-bit case is also better
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-02
01:35:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 25174
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25174
Updated draft
This one is much better, and actually should lead to slightly better code than
C++98,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25173|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-01
22:17:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 25173
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25173
Draft patch
Hi Marc. This is a patch I'm working on. Can you see anything obviously wrong
with it? A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-01
19:29:23 UTC ---
Urgh, I can't believe it's here:
#ifdef __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
constexpr bitset(unsigned long long __val) noexcept
: _Base(__val) { }
#else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50268
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-01
19:23:37 UTC ---
Any idea where the problem is?
20 matches
Mail list logo
