May 12, 2026

No, surprisingly most of these are bogus. The rest are either not applicable or not significant.

1-4 and 6 are bogus. 5 is correct but not relevant (lacks context). 7 is correct and has been investigated, but denormalizing and not significant. 8 is not significant. 9 has been done repeatedly over years and may not be strictly optimal but should be very close. It has hallucinated a std lib replacement for boost multiprecision.

10 is a reference to what is tested in CI. Packaged LTCG builds exist for windows, and these produce dramatically slower runtime. The comment about hash CU call boundaries is incorrect, these are all implemented in headers. Linux LTO builds should be tested however.

It seems that it may have consumed /version3 not /master. The reason I know these off the top of my head is that much if this is work that was done for v4.

Otherwise I'd say these are seasonable areas to investigate, but it should be able to see they are bogus.