[Bug c++/58713] New: error: cannot bind ‘std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream}’ lvalue to ‘std::basic_ostream

2013-10-13 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ali.baharev at gmail dot com #include struct A { }; int main() { A a; std::cout << a; } - g++ 4.8.1, 64 bit w

[Bug c++/58714] New: Bogus value category in ternary operator?

2013-10-13 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ali.baharev at gmail dot com struct X { X& operator=(const X&) = delete; X& operator=(X&& ) = default; }; void f(bool t) { X a, b; *(t ? &a : &b) = X(); (t ? a : b) = X(); } - The line:

[Bug c++/58714] Bogus value category in ternary operator?

2013-10-13 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714 --- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev --- OK, sorry for the dupe.

[Bug c++/58717] Pre-calculation optimization is omitted

2013-10-13 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717 Ali Baharev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ali.baharev at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/58713] error: cannot bind ‘std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream}’ lvalue to ‘std::basic_ostream

2013-10-13 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713 --- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev --- >> Why do the 32 and 64 bit versions behave differently? > > They don't. I think maybe you forgot to use -std=c++11 in the first case? Yes, that's what happened. Sorry, my mistake.

[Bug other/58863] New: for loop not aligned at -O2 or -O3

2013-10-24 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ali.baharev at gmail dot com The for loop in work() is the hotspot: const int LOOP_BOUND = 2; __attribute__((noinline)) static int add(const int& x, const int& y) { return x + y; } __attribute__((noinline)) static

[Bug other/58863] for loop not aligned at -O2 or -O3

2013-10-24 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58863 --- Comment #2 from Ali Baharev --- Please check with objdump. It's not what I get in the executable.

[Bug other/58863] for loop not aligned at -O2 or -O3

2013-10-24 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58863 --- Comment #4 from Ali Baharev --- My mistake, sorry. So, you are saying that the default alignment is 8 byte for loops? The funny thing is, this code runs 15% faster, if any of the followings are passed: -Os -O2 -fno-align-loops -fno-align

[Bug other/58863] for loop not aligned at -O2 or -O3

2013-10-24 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58863 --- Comment #5 from Ali Baharev --- OK, then 8 byte default alignment for loops is the default. If you think it is not a bug, then let's close this. Sorry for the false alarm.

[Bug c++/59550] New: compiler crash when forming a pointer to a reference would be needed in std::initalizer_list

2013-12-18 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ali.baharev at gmail dot com Code: #include #include using namespace std; void writeSomething(initializer_list args) { for (auto f : args ) f

[Bug c++/60212] New: no warning for unused variables

2014-02-15 Thread ali.baharev at gmail dot com
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ali.baharev at gmail dot com Created attachment 32144 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32144&action=edit source file needed to reproduce the bug report After reading the documentation, I would expect a warning th