This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Come up with function_decl_type and use it in tree_function_decl.
- From: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, dominik dot infuehr at theobroma-systems dot com
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:53:30 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Come up with function_decl_type and use it in tree_function_decl.
- References: <8305B5F4-2A96-4698-8C2E-3255658B5C12@theobroma-systems.com> <CAFiYyc2nZ4vSGa5d_ni0km2kwUtyd9+BScrKzxKdbhZVfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20171122103742.GN14653@tucnak> <BC60F078-9257-4E4F-8D94-7C41F7C7B802@theobroma-systems.com> <email@example.com> <20171129083045.GX2353@tucnak> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 7/2/19 7:15 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>> After the discussion with Richi and Nathan, I made a place in tree_function_decl
>> and I rebased the original Dominik's patch on top of that.
> So, last time there were some questions about the legality of this transformation. Did you change the exact set of functions on which this is applied?
Yes. I was not included in the original discussion, but I hope the transformation is valid.
Btw. clang also removes the new/delete pairs and I guess it was the original motivation of the patch.
Or has there been a clarification in the standard saying that this is ok? (or were we mistaken the first time to believe that there might be an issue?)