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 1322B38582BD; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:55:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1322B38582BD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681300524;
	bh=Ki2QTG1nbwLO8Rjp+eMnotqIP352rdAuL3qK5/Jk1/c=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VhLkzhSc4edaRrQwn0XcVnorX/Yp/JpdK+WdW0ygP4pG3hWdWiIr7nJ4wgws39dNC
	 Y25+ev+UK6PYxrMkhie6jj28QZY6or4+apj+Vp6g2QqOx76Hwe3PfCcW8bkpStSqj3
	 gtKM931LsQNxP52asUhq51MjCKTyR0CE/vHm/gIU=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/109442] Dead local copy of std::vector not removed
 from function
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:55:23 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
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-109442-4-LSiMUArfJL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109442-4@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=3D109442

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
                   |                            |.co.uk

--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
@zygoloid, are you the right person to ask about __builtin_operator_new
semantics? See the previous comment (comment 12)=