public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/58483] missing optimization opportunity for const std::vector compared to std::array Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 06:21:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-58483-4-5y2wzPC08z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-58483-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to dennis luehring from comment #7) [clang] > void *__builtin_operator_new(size_t) > void __builtin_operator_delete(void*) I don't understand why N3664 is talking of new expressions instead of operator new calls, it doesn't give any rationale for that choice, and we get duplicate wording between the description of new expressions and std::allocator::allocate. But at least it explains why they have these builtins (which at first sight is strange since they don't have __builtin_malloc). > gcc seems to have removed these long time ago and i currently do understand > whats gcc solution could be We may add a compilation flag that promises the user won't try to replace the main operator new / operator delete. The compiler could then inline them (either LTO or make an inlined version available), see malloc + free, and hopefully simplify that. We may also introduce those 2 builtins. Anyway, the first priority is simplifying the rest until there are just the calls to new+delete left. That's not currently the case.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-04 6:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-09-20 11:03 [Bug tree-optimization/58483] New: " dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2013-09-20 11:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/58483] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-09-20 11:17 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2013-09-20 14:46 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2013-09-28 18:52 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2013-09-29 8:06 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2013-10-03 23:57 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-10-08 10:43 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-05-28 12:24 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-06-04 5:48 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2014-06-04 6:21 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-11-14 14:19 ` dl.soluz at gmx dot net 2023-05-30 18:43 ` 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-58483-4-5y2wzPC08z@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).