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 1E9263858403; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:01:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1E9263858403
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712959268;
	bh=ugA8BzKxlzmaAc/SfmKEumN8v6j4IZPz8etAL3yZvZs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=H2PT14dy2kJ+xP/r+RoDs3cjFiKkY2mCaTE1H9WVnJB5Y+7fYg43JHE7X4ck0tPnL
	 0KaLAXELQAsT5K+LQdsJ5EmpHSmw1AwYbCJSDUyyg3R9A87bv1p169yDc9wmYg0IC9
	 1lpx69mpUbt2Ktf6EJ5ggD5vVQNNW+KQ/AT5K0eE=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/114703] Missed devirtualization in rather simple case
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:01:07 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-114703-4-qvfjvC528k@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114703-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114703-4@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=3D114703

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-04-12
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The problem I think is we don't realize that `operator new` can't touch the
other memory that was just allocated partly because the escape analysis is =
not
flow sensitive .=