public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107500] Useless atexit entry for ~constant_init in eh_globals.cc
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:36:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107500-4-csphBHRPQf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107500-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107500

--- Comment #9 from R. Diez <rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de> ---
> [...]
> not just "turn on -Os and all the code gets removed".

I am sure that the solution is not as trivial as "turn on -Os". But, as an
outsider, it is hard to believe that it "takes non-trivial analysis of the
destructor body". The destructor is empty!

I am not talking about the GCC optimiser realising afterwards that the code is
generating an atexit() entry that does nothing. I am saying that GCC should not
generate so much code for an empty function for starters, and that GCC should
not generate the destructor registration at all if the destructor is empty. I
would imagine that those steps come before the optimiser gets to see the
generated code.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-02 13:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-01 17:53 [Bug c++/107500] New: " rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-02 12:07 ` [Bug libstdc++/107500] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 12:08 ` [Bug c++/107500] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 12:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 12:46 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-02 13:01 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-02 13:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 13:09 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 13:29 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-02 13:36 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de [this message]
2022-11-02 14:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 14:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 15:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 16:12 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-02 17:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 17:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-03  7:57 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-03 11:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-03 11:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-04  9:42 ` sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de
2022-11-04 12:43 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-04 14:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-04 14:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-04 14:58 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2022-11-04 20:40 ` rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
2023-05-08 12:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-16 10:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-16 10:29 ` [Bug c++/107500] [12 Regression] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-18 14:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-22 15:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107500-4-csphBHRPQf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).