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 D24013857716; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:06:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D24013857716
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1690819567;
	bh=DqV9TDyTZgjqn4U9+7nnOp+eCtvHe/mkcOn8Xh5N6E0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RF90L0zp931QuKvcW5jnUEIg1Mtq56vzM8FeuBn+Gp1ymr9pUoyp4yvbeQG5OEL7W
	 +HPS4QgFH+ql+vxzcO+UdKVdvTQNY+59qtH2LPBAnWX627T4CyIFkfCAsmpJ68FrkU
	 KOwjYa4YKWeiFSXcRfU0me4AMMAWgVwO3qq/WAyI=
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/110378] IPA-SRA for destructors
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:06:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm 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: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-110378-4-E9mdrjngjt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110378-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110378-4@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=3D110378

--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 55664
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D55664&action=3Dedit
Testcase with single inheritance

This testcase is somewhat more difficult and addressing will mean not
just changes in the IPA-SRA analysis but also in the modification.
Both need to deal with the following:

     _1 =3D &this_2(D)->D.2842;
    {anonymous}::foo::~foo (_1);

Modification must see _1 before its use to understand it is just
another name for a (split) parameter and must behave accordingly when
processing the call statement (i.e. prepare ground for call
redirection later).=