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: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Carrot Wei <carrot at google dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:58:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor
References: <7587b290909030704n667f0bceweb638f66694a927@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000909030720p1bcf6f4dx9d6fc7a49791fbd@mail.gmail.com> <7587b290909070103n3348aa7fxb48cf6c4b360033c@mail.gmail.com>

+/* DELETE_DTOR is a delete destructor whose body will be build.

s/build/built

+ call_delete = build_op_delete_call(DELETE_EXPR, current_class_ptr,

Space before (.

I don't think we need to mess with decl_map for the deleting destructor, either.

Doing this in maybe_clone_body seems a bit dodgy, since we aren't really cloning anymore, but I guess it's fine.

Re inlining comments, introducing a local alias seems wrong; either the function is replaceable or it isn't. In any case, I'm not concerned about the overhead of an extra call in the deleting destructor, which is going to be dominated by free().

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor
  - From: Carrot Wei

References:
- [PATCH: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor
  - From: Carrot Wei
- Re: [PATCH: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH: PR /3187] C++ space optimization: declone delete destructor
  - From: Carrot Wei

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