From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11941 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2014 20:08:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11899 invoked by uid 48); 15 Oct 2014 20:08:33 -0000 From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:08:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01194.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53000 --- Comment #29 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #28) > Something is going wrong here: the bug is closed as fixed, but if I try to > enable in 20_util/common_type/requirements/sfinae_friendly_1.cc the lines > which require the bug to be fixed to pass, I'm still seeing a failure, for > the line: >=20 > static_assert(is_type, > Ukn>(), ""); >=20 > Maybe Daniel or Jason can clarify?? Comparing this test with the current wording in 5.16 the assertion looks incorrect and should be doomed to fail - sorry! I'll check the remaining on= es and will suggest a patch for it. >>From gcc-bugs-return-464174-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Oct 15 20:37:39 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26455 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2014 20:37:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26430 invoked by uid 48); 15 Oct 2014 20:37:35 -0000 From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/63537] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Missed optimization: Loop unrolling adds extra copy when returning aggregate Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:37:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.4 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01195.txt.bz2 Content-length: 538 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63537 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Eventually a simple pass could handle > > = ret; > ret ={v} {CLOBBER}; > return ; > > and back-propagate into all stores/loads of ret. Shouldn't tree-nrv.c already handle this, except that it currently bails out if TREE_ADDRESSABLE (found)? (strangely enough it has (dead) code to handle the addressable case further in the same function)