From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-337360-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1315 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2010 19:04:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 1306 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2010 19:04:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:04:49 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/46507] std::tuple missed optimization
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-46507-4-1iLAwy3ehV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46507-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46507-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:06:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg02093.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2010-11-16 19:04:37 UTC ---
Interesting. Not that I think it would make a huge difference, but probably
this is a more "fair" comparison:

   #include <tuple>
   #include <utility>

   struct A
   {
     virtual void f () const;
   };

   void arg_tuple_test (const std::tuple<A,A> &t)
   {
     std::get<0>(t).f ();
   }

   void extern_tuple_test ()
   {
     extern const std::tuple<A, A> &t;
     std::get<0>(t).f ();
   }

   void arg_pair_test (const std::pair<A,A> &t)
   {
     std::get<0>(t).f ();
   }