From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4744 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2009 21:06:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 4733 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Dec 2009 21:06:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f227.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f227.google.com) (209.85.219.227) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:06:19 +0000 Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so11548218ewy.16 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:06:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.85.194 with SMTP id u44mr4828040wee.65.1261861573808; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:06:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091201192247.GT22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> References: <20091130223653.GO22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <20091201094652.GQ22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <20091201192247.GT22813@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6dc9ffc80912261306q7eac03b4re6614feaf57fe26@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Optimize C++ comdat ctors/dtors in classes without virtual bases (PR c++/3187, take 5) From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg01139.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > After discussions on IRC, here is the latest version of the patch. > For now the problematic implicitly defined virtual comdat destructors aren't > optimized, even when the base and complete dtor have the same body, as the > deleting dtor isn't necessarily emitted iff the base/complete dtors are > emitted. > > The nice effect of that patch is that the libstdc++ symbol version script > changes aren't needed. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux (with the checking patch on top of > it), ok for trunk? > This caused: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42508 -- H.J.