public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/94295] use __builtin_operator_new and __builtin_operator_delete when available
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:06:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94295-4-pNCgzdEOjl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94295-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94295

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Richard S., is there any reason to use the built-ins for the constant
evaluation case? I assume not. Currently std::allocator does:

      [[nodiscard,__gnu__::__always_inline__]]
      constexpr _Tp*
      allocate(size_t __n)
      {
#ifdef __cpp_lib_is_constant_evaluated
        if (std::is_constant_evaluated())
          return static_cast<_Tp*>(::operator new(__n * sizeof(_Tp)));
#endif
        return __allocator_base<_Tp>::allocate(__n, 0);
      }

and my assumption is that there is no reason to change this code, because the
benefits of __builtin_operator_new are only for run-time uses.

The calls to ::operator new in __allocator_base<_Tp>::allocate can use the
built-in though e.g.

--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/new_allocator.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/new_allocator.h
@@ -97,6 +97,14 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
       { return std::__addressof(__x); }
 #endif

+#if __has_builtin(__builtin_operator_new) >= 201802L
+# define _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_NEW __builtin_operator_new
+# define _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_DELETE __builtin_operator_delete
+#else
+# define _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_NEW ::operator new
+# define _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_DELETE ::operator delete
+#endif
+
       // NB: __n is permitted to be 0.  The C++ standard says nothing
       // about what the return value is when __n == 0.
       _GLIBCXX_NODISCARD _Tp*
@@ -121,34 +129,38 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
        if (alignof(_Tp) > __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__)
          {
            std::align_val_t __al = std::align_val_t(alignof(_Tp));
-           return static_cast<_Tp*>(::operator new(__n * sizeof(_Tp), __al));
+           return static_cast<_Tp*>(_GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_NEW(__n * sizeof(_Tp),
+                                                          __al));
          }
 #endif
-       return static_cast<_Tp*>(::operator new(__n * sizeof(_Tp)));
+       return static_cast<_Tp*>(_GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_NEW(__n * sizeof(_Tp)));
       }

       // __p is not permitted to be a null pointer.
       void
       deallocate(_Tp* __p, size_type __t __attribute__ ((__unused__)))
       {
+#if __cpp_sized_deallocation
+# define _GLIBCXX_SIZED_DEALLOC(p) p, __t * sizeof(_Tp)
+#else
+# define _GLIBCXX_SIZED_DEALLOC(p) p
+#endif
+
 #if __cpp_aligned_new
        if (alignof(_Tp) > __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__)
          {
-           ::operator delete(__p,
-# if __cpp_sized_deallocation
-                             __t * sizeof(_Tp),
-# endif
-                             std::align_val_t(alignof(_Tp)));
+           _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_DELETE(_GLIBCXX_SIZED_DEALLOC(__p),
+                                    std::align_val_t(alignof(_Tp)));
            return;
          }
 #endif
-       ::operator delete(__p
-#if __cpp_sized_deallocation
-                         , __t * sizeof(_Tp)
-#endif
-                        );
+       _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_DELETE(_GLIBCXX_SIZED_DEALLOC(__p));
       }

+#undef _GLIBCXX_SIZED_DEALLOC
+#undef _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_DELETE
+#undef _GLIBCXX_OPERATOR_NEW
+
 #if __cplusplus <= 201703L
       size_type
       max_size() const _GLIBCXX_USE_NOEXCEPT



I see no benefit to using __builtin_operator_new in
std::pmr::new_delete_resource either, because  that will usually be used
through virtual calls to std::pmr::memory_resource::do_allocate, and the actual
call to ::operator new is inside libstdc++.so, not visible to the compiler.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-07-19 16:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-23 23:16 [Bug libstdc++/94295] New: " richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-03-24  7:04 ` [Bug libstdc++/94295] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-24 20:26 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-03-24 20:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-24 21:04 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-03-24 21:34 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-24 21:58 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2020-03-26 20:08 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-19 16:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-07-20 18:58 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2021-07-20 19:00 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-20 19:31 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-20 19:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-22 13:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-22 13:44 ` redi 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-94295-4-pNCgzdEOjl@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).