This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Detect not-cloned new/delete operators in DCE.

From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
To: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, dominik dot infuehr at theobroma-systems dot com, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:44:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Detect not-cloned new/delete operators in DCE.
References: <8305B5F4-2A96-4698-8C2E-3255658B5C12@theobroma-systems.com> <BC60F078-9257-4E4F-8D94-7C41F7C7B802@theobroma-systems.com> <ec89be92-a232-5e34-e482-493b9babb65b@gmail.com> <20171129083045.GX2353@tucnak> <f6e7d0ed-4709-5e66-5bec-16d4e7c61ac0@gmail.com> <1511972121.27881.39.camel@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1805131552200.22357@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <0dd24714-1f35-6a80-c607-7c8a332e95b9@suse.cz> <993cd4f8-cc02-6934-b19b-5a313db0475c@suse.cz> <CAMe9rOo_ZNS_Gnxn93CPDfpmjnhMTRMwfqzATNdj7Pb9FAkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <c97fed17-3bc6-eb8e-e9b8-35b11e70e50f@suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908050849210.22406@stedding.saclay.inria.fr> <a87c1e03-f8c2-c0a8-eb6c-39200f342947@suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908051340460.20630@grove.saclay.inria.fr> <fd8da5bb-c8bf-c5cb-08d4-594c5460f89e@suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908051512410.20630@grove.saclay.inria.fr> <4dcdd0cb-dc8d-73f4-75a2-8ad1e91731fc@suse.cz> <68bad397-25cb-3233-e392-0964e21ccd71@suse.cz>

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Martin Liška wrote:

Anyway, I'm sending patch that considers only such new/delete operators
that are not a clone of an original type. That should make the current
DCE code more solid.

DECL_IS_REPLACEABLE_OPERATOR_NEW_P seems to have been replaced withDECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW_P. Is that on purpose?

I like your cleanup of having a single function to decide if this is thekind of operator new/delete DCE can handle, but you may have introducedlong lines in the substitution.


--
Marc Glisse

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Detect not-cloned new/delete operators in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška

References:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Extend DCE to remove unnecessary new/delete-pairs (PR c++/23383).
  - From: H.J. Lu
- [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška
- [PATCH] Detect not-cloned new/delete operators in DCE.
  - From: Martin Liška

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]