This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Josh Conner <jconner at apple dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:36:37 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
- References: <44F6DBB3.2080809@apple.com> <44F769D1.1010205@redhat.com> <44F76AAE.7000601@redhat.com> <44F76EB9.3010103@apple.com> <44F829EB.40704@redhat.com> <44F85FD4.1070101@apple.com>
Josh Conner wrote on 09/01/06 12:29:
> Where should I go from here?
>
After thinking a bit more about it, I think your patch should be safe.
The cases it does handle are clearly valid and you are right about
readibility.
> 2006-09-01 Josh Conner <jconner@apple.com>
>
> PR c++/25505
> * tree-nrv.c (dest_safe_for_nrv_p): New function.
> (execute_return_slot_opt): Use it.
>
> 2006-09-01 Josh Conner <jconner@apple.com>
>
> PR c++/25505
> gcc.dg/nrv3.c: New test.
> gcc.dg/nrv4.c: New test.
> gcc.dg/nrv5.c: New test.
>
OK.
What happened to the gimplifier change? Did you commit that already?
If not, go ahead.