public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/114245] Defaulted virtual destructors that do no work overwrite the vtable with `-O0`
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 16:33:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-114245-4-E73sFtzFcR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-114245-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114245

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Updating the vtable is necessary during destruction if a later (i.e. less
derived) destructor calls a virtual function. But if we can tell that the
current dtor and all later base dtors are trivial, then we know that can't
happen.

If the front end detected that case, we wouldn't need to rely on dead store
elimination.

Maybe we could even avoid the __cxa_atexit registration if the most derived
dtor is trivial (I don't recall if there's some ABI reason we need that
registration even if the dtor is known to be a no-op). That is something that
that would be much harder for the middle end to do, so is an argument for the
front end handling it.

If we are allowed to remove the __cxa_atexit call, that changes this from
"remove some dead stores even at -O0 which helps some programs with UB" to a
more significant optimization.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-06 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-05 20:08 [Bug c++/114245] New: " mwinkler at blizzard dot com
2024-03-06  6:44 ` [Bug c++/114245] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-06  6:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-06 16:14 ` mwinkler at blizzard dot com
2024-03-06 16:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-03-06 16:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-28 22:17 ` pinskia 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-114245-4-E73sFtzFcR@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).