public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109945] Escape analysis hates copy elision: different result with -O1 vs -O2
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:00:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109945-4-R1UvY81v0b@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109945-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109945

--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We'd need the FE to note it somewhere (of course, if it is indirect call or the
call doesn't bind to the definition we'd need to assume it might be with
mandatory NRV).
I think in the C++ FE it is finalized in finalize_nrv, but which one is
mandatory and which one is just that the FE does it because it is allowed to,
no idea.
Plus, not really sure if it would be valid to rely on it the way the testcase
does if it is not mandatory.
Jason?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-24  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-23 14:00 [Bug c++/109945] New: " arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2023-05-23 16:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/109945] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 16:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 16:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 16:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 16:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 16:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 17:46 ` arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2023-05-23 17:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 17:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 17:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 19:38 ` arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2023-05-24  6:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24  8:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24  8:42 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-05-24  8:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24  8:55 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-05-24  9:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-05-24 10:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-01 23:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-10  8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20  9:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 10:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 11:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 12:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 12:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 12:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 12:41 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 12:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-20 15:47 ` arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2024-02-20 15:52 ` arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2024-02-20 16:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-01 17:20 ` 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-109945-4-R1UvY81v0b@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).