public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/45791] Missed devirtualization Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:46:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-45791-4-anUSrevIOP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-45791-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791 Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2010.12.14 17:45:52 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-14 17:45:52 UTC --- I've just confirmed that main of the testcase from the initial bug description is optimized to nothing even by just the early optimizers on trunk. My dynamic-type change detection patches postpone that a little bit, unfortunately (and inevitably) but the final result is the same. I believe we have testcases already for this. As far as the testcase from comment #5 is concerned, that is quite another matter because the object is dynamically allocated there. If the constructor is inlined, we may do this with improved folding of O_T_R according to its first parameter. If it is not, we would need to be able to track the object interprocedurally to verify nothing bad happens to it (like a call to a destructor followed by a call to placement new). And of course we would have to solve the "operator new is not malloc" problem.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-14 17:46 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-09-25 17:28 [Bug tree-optimization/45791] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-25 19:50 ` [Bug tree-optimization/45791] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-26 3:33 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-26 3:39 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-26 6:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-11 17:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-11 18:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 17:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2010-12-14 23:15 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 23:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 23:35 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 0:10 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 0:13 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 16:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-24 9:44 ` matthijs at stdin dot nl 2014-09-25 20:29 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-07 17:38 ` jamborm 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-45791-4-anUSrevIOP@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: linkBe 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).