[Bug c++/66355] New: defining a constructor inhibits optimization

2015-05-31 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 35659 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35659&action=edit Archive contains wrap-int-[012].cxx and makefile Ideally, replacing t

[Bug c++/4131] The C++ compiler doesn't place a const class object to ".rodata" section with non trivial constructor

2015-06-09 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131 kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalmquist1 at hotmail dot

[Bug c++/66355] defining a constructor inhibits optimization

2015-06-09 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66355 kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/4131] The C++ compiler doesn't place a const class object to ".rodata" section with non trivial constructor

2015-06-10 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131 --- Comment #29 from Kenneth Almquist --- (In reply to Jorg Brown from comment #20) > Now, the order of construction is well-defined, and that is why the program > produces: > > podStr = '*' > nonpodStr = '' > > That is, the nonPOD is still zero

[Bug driver/66657] New: Feature request - assembly output from lto compiler

2015-06-24 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
Component: driver Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- There should be a gcc command line option to generate the assembly language output of the lto compiler. The -S option doesn't do this because it prevents th

[Bug driver/66657] Feature request - assembly output from lto compiler

2015-06-25 Thread kalmquist1 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66657 --- Comment #3 from Kenneth Almquist --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > What are you trying to do with the assembly after the fact? In this particular case, I wanted to look at it for two reasons: 1) To determine which functions