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: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>,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>,dominik dot infuehr at theobroma-systems dot com
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 17:51:26 +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> <email@example.com>
On July 3, 2019 4:53:30 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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
>>> 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
>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.
We also remove malloc/free pairs which the C standard does not explicitly allow (but also doesn't explicitly forbid). I don't think standards need to enumerate everything allowed and I don't know any explicit wording in the C++ standard that forbids this. It's only that users can override the allocation functions (but so can they in C) and it was suggested we need to preserve side effects unknown to the compiler.
>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