From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-391398-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25612 invoked by alias); 9 May 2012 13:56:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 25604 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2012 13:56:13 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_CX
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; Wed, 09 May 2012 13:55:57 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/53294] Optimize out some exception code
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:36:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-53294-4-5wPWPE91b5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53294-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53294-4@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
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: 2012-05/txt/msg01016.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-05-09
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-09 13:55:37 UTC ---
Certainly interesting.  We lower things too early into __cxa calls though
(I think) to make this work easily.

Consider cases like

struct X { int i; };

int foo (void)
{
  try {
    X x;
    x.i = 5;
    throw x;
  } catch (X& x) {
      return x.i;
  } catch (...) {
   return 0;
   }
}