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.


  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: link
Be 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).