From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 49C15385E014; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 49C15385E014
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1585133093;
 bh=U+JHo0EHKT4NCU3uRj1I10gljcR1acBEj/EWDj/k0a0=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=wvJHuLHhZvBjSTWrkJqy3nP/5zr5ZC759UcUJtmsiUTloDzUlb4HW2oncbPDcl7MU
 Gjim61EN+9NNvyATk039KX2R9IwUMT8kW3HpQng58cX751Nghqn+3dLXAyvrZ6Pj4e
 52wncuMsGD3HcUn1p6d03cwx1gG6b2/C52aJbo1E=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/94314] [10 Regression] Optimizing mismatched new/delete
 pairs since r10-2106-g6343b6bf3bb83c87
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:53 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94314-4-2hqtv8TbCe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94314-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94314-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:53 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94314

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #3)
> Yes, I remember we discussed the topic about the user-provided new/delete
> implementations. Can please Jason or Jonathan comment about the test-case?

The testcase is certainly valid.  The issue is we're matching new/delete
pairs by means of dataflow (the new resulting pointer is fed to the delete)
and identify new/delete by the decls flag.  But that doesn't catch the case
in this PR where there is a mismatch between the new/delete calls.

Now - the question is if whether class-specific operator new/delete even
have to "match" in this sense or how it's possible to "match" at all.

I think the frontend has to provide some "link" between the new/delete
decls to make this work (which is then quite heavy - an extra pointer in
function decls) :/=