From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 126140 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2016 10:11:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 126105 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2016 10:11:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_MXURI,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=2016.02.25, 20160225, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:11:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 20115 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2016 11:11:23 +0100 Received: from ip5b41f88a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.65.248.138) by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 25 Feb 2016 11:11:23 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:11:00 -0000 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Martin Sebor , GCC Patches , jason@redhat.com, Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors Message-ID: <20160225101123.GB302@x4> References: <56C33857.7080007@suse.cz> <56C35470.3060700@gmail.com> <56C481D3.8000902@suse.cz> <20160217142346.GF3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <56C48B37.2080500@suse.cz> <56CED0DC.7040403@suse.cz> <20160225100729.GA302@x4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160225100729.GA302@x4> X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg01707.txt.bz2 On 2016.02.25 at 11:07 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.02.25 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 02/17/2016 04:01 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > > > On 02/17/2016 03:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > >> "has been" looks weird. I'd say that the C++ compiler is now more > > >> aggressive... > > >> > > I've been thinking if the suggested patch makes sense any longer after > > the following patch was applied: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01651.html ? > > It still makes sense, just replace -fno-lifetime-dse with > -fno-lifetime-dse=1. Err, I mean -flifetime-dse=1 of course. -- Markus