https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> > (The split into push_heap and __push_heap is just so the first part can be
> > inlined without the second, right?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |8.2
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-24 00:00:00 |2017-1-19
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugs at jbapple dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konig121 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.9.2
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Most recent discussion about this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-07/msg00105.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-24
10:49:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> But __pop_heap doesn't seem so straightforward to tweak, we also changed
> a bit the interfaces.
At first glance, I am not sure why pop_heap can end up callin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-23
15:26:34 UTC ---
Indeed, I double checked that *before* changing the functions to use moves we
had plain copies, that is the original HP/SGI functions had copies, nothing was
passed by reference. Thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-23
14:11:08 UTC ---
Thanks, Chris.
I haven't looked at the patch or test yet, but I'm a little surprised the
compiler can't elide the move constructors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Chris Jefferson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #1 from Aliaksandr Valialkin 2012-01-23
13:51:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26427
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26427
Testcase for determining redundant move constructions in stl_heap
23 matches
Mail list logo
