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 527E73858C62; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 17:22:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 527E73858C62
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1672852970;
	bh=8y9j/CqxPMO6hQW3WSi1X0yo3ysj/NS75gQNnekEob4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rEJLIMaohVG4C+foeXsGzY3BFjUvRei4QdanfRkO4WA8NgK27Jm59ZsuHMKcFFi78
	 poQdl4iRcuI+7fbXv2NO5Hu2hVHLHv49VoilKXFxtafy+htZ323b7VsSxmzDfzVXDD
	 Mr0HaZE993gFJGymaJ2r0aaEUX5fPOcdPxhm34dM=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108243] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Missed optimization for
 static const std::string_view(const char*)
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:22:50 +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: 11.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-108243-4-dzLgRuSfM6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108243-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108243-4@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=3D108243

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We could have some FE constant expression evaluation mode in which we'd
guarantee that if the initializer/expression was manifestly constant evalua=
ted,
it has been constant expression evaluated with manifestly_const_eval=3Dtrue
already and do that as a last resort folding of initializers or perhaps
expressions in cp_fold_function or so.
But as you wrote, we can't do that by default for !manifestly_const_eval
evaluation, because we often do that before we evaluate those with
manifestly_const_eval=3Dtrue.=