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 6BCB43858409; Wed,  2 Nov 2022 13:36:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6BCB43858409
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1667396208;
	bh=5UgxXuiqloKJEEGAlJJ1czvisJ4zlA0Ete5EfHIS99E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FnARfT6FT+sSELQKxby3003N5R9j+kBV7fjF3DNNdVRrYbpZdGU0L/tz0Kj3D72nR
	 qh2NvYciFf8hY1phZ/kUeQ/GLXOBTsMniiggHHVZ6UGtzuwLWyE5flO2JKRQBSC4wS
	 zOIry9Md76xSnednzpW/kSrzWDawsDVtD5fNK+ms=
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rdiezmail-gcc at yahoo dot de
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-107500-4-csphBHRPQf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107500-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107500-4@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=3D107500

--- 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 shou=
ld
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.=