From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 379933858D32; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:17:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 379933858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663748243;
	bh=oRtfZkuV7yngQATRM9uHWBmLtxHB83M7G8WeTo3a4qU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yQgy/Lv0sVlLmWUYzygzoWun5JcuQMD6bfpzPgizoG8H11B4VP4A+8tFRiMUymjiX
	 FKSWh/iNUMfn55wT/x99OpY5LYo0y9BysZoBSRd2FsaZKt7G3aAImgm+BTXNvMDez0
	 qJATOnYbIrBnTTtNqAQARBFp5+rBsslINLjR9qU4=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/106991] new+delete pair not optimized by g++ at -O3 but
 optimized at -Os
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:17:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed keywords cc cf_reconfirmed_on
 component bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-106991-4-aVYRIdsNRw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106991-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106991-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106991

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
                 CC|                            |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-09-21
          Component|tree-optimization           |ipa
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like inlining decisions decide to inline new but not delete but for -=
Os
we inline none and elide the new/delete pair.

Maybe we can devise some inline hints to keep pairs?=