From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 57BFC3858D1E; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 21:52:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 57BFC3858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704059522;
	bh=lgONjrNpWC+W3ZVDUQ6GirW0/dbPn29FMtS+v37KqFk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=x5PyIm0eDlIHS9zjt7a+hxguvwrkLoUOpnfMdtzXAym5bk9oUbEpdNvg+KYOLXLMg
	 uQz/8MgrmgkYY65/goITCx1SvxXlxrfVTC4zf7wlXFWdemUvjX0gaVSCLDqDGjE+9Q
	 6M+g4fFfZJeGJT0ekl+Iip7mErlrKpO4MDeRLzFU=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/113175] [14 Regression]
 testsuite/std/ranges/iota/max_size_type.cc 5x times slower
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 21:52:01 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113175-4-izDz45zPnn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113175-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113175-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113175

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4)
> IIRC the "signed_rep_t =3D __int128;" case has really detected a compiler=
 bug,
> so IMO we shouldn't just disable it.
>=20
> Maybe my memory is flawed though.

I think it was the opposite. Using `signed rep_t` relied on a compiler bug.
When that bug was fixed we had to introduce a typedef for that type. I have=
 no
idea why it would make the test slower though.=