https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #17 from AK ---
Even after vector::size() is hoisted, the codegen is sub-optimal compared to
iterator version.
```
void use_idx_const_size(std::vector v) {
auto s = v.size();
for (std::vector::size_type i = 0; i < s; i++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Note maybe the restrict qualification isn't the best representation since
> it doesn't capture the value will die upon function return (does it? I
> gues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> And I don't see any code generation changes on the #c0 testcase with added
> #include with the patch.
Yes, that's because we cannot disambiguate the call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I don't see any code generation changes on the #c0 testcase with added
#include with the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Making the reference types to return or parameter non-POD types passed by value
restrict could be
--- gcc/cp/call.cc.jj 2023-03-30 09:34:05.609725768 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/call.cc 2023-04-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No:
This elision of copy/move operations, called copy elision, is permitted in the
following circumstances (which may be combined to eliminate multiple copies):
— in a return statement in a function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
12 matches
Mail list logo
