On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jason Merrill
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.c b/gcc/cp/init.c
>>> index
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.c b/gcc/cp/init.c
>> index c76460d..53d6133 100644
>> --- a/gcc/cp/init.c
>> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.c
>> @@ -4038,6 +4038,15
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> Default-initialization of scalar arrays in C++ member initialization
> lists produced rather slow code, laboriously setting each element of the
> array to zero. It would be much faster to block-initialize the array,
>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> Default-initialization of scalar arrays in C++ member initialization
> lists produced rather slow code, laboriously setting each element of the
> array to zero. It would be much faster to block-initialize the array,
>
Default-initialization of scalar arrays in C++ member initialization
lists produced rather slow code, laboriously setting each element of the
array to zero. It would be much faster to block-initialize the array,
and that's what this patch does.
The patch works for me, but I'm not sure if it's