public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109443] missed optimization of std::vector access (Related to issue 35269)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:24:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109443-4-eF61TmOoP4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109443-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443

--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> And I don't see any code generation changes on the #c0 testcase with added
> #include <vector> with the patch.

Yes, that's because we cannot disambiguate the call against a restrict
qualified memory access.  But otherwise it "works".

Note maybe the restrict qualification isn't the best representation since
it doesn't capture the value will die upon function return (does it?  I
gues the DTOR if any will run in caller context and thus stores to it
are not necessarily "dead").

It's on my list of things to do to investigate adding "'restrict' support"
to calls for GCC14.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-04-13 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-06 19:31 [Bug tree-optimization/109443] New: " hiraditya at msn dot com
2023-04-06 19:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/109443] " hiraditya at msn dot com
2023-04-07  6:51 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-07  6:53 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-07  6:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-07  6:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-11 10:16 ` [Bug c++/109443] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-12 15:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13  6:58 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-04-13  7:43 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13  8:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13  8:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-04-13 12:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 13:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-04-13 13:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 13:27 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-06-15 18:04 ` hiraditya at msn dot com

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-109443-4-eF61TmOoP4@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).