On 8/7/19 4:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/7/19 12:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:44:28PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/19 11:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> I think the simplest way to achieve this is to not copy, aka clear,
>>>>> DECL_IS_OPERATOR_* when cloning and removing arguments
>>>>> (cloning for a constant align argument should be OK for example, as is
>>>>> for a constant address).  Or simply always when cloning.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, then I'm suggesting following tested patch.
>>>>
>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>>
>>> What about LAMBDA_FUNCTION, doesn't cloning which changes arguments in any
>>> way invalidate that too, i.e. shouldn't it be just
>>>   FUNCTION_DECL_DECL_TYPE (new_node->decl) = NONE;
>>
>> Well, how are lambdas involved in the new/delete DCE here? Lambdas with removed
>> arguments should not interfere here.
> 
> But for coverage where we do
> 
>   gcov_write_unsigned (DECL_ARTIFICIAL (current_function_decl)
>                        && !DECL_FUNCTION_VERSIONED (current_function_decl)
>                        && !DECL_LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (current_function_decl));
> 
> all clones should be considered artificial?

Well, from coverage perspective most of them are fine.

> 
> Anyway, your patch is OK, we can think about lambdas separately.  Can you
> simplify the DCE code after the patch?

I installed the patch and I'm sending the follow up cleanup.

Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.

Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin

> 
> Thanks,
> Richard.
> 
>>> instead?  On the other side, if the cloning doesn't change arguments in any
>>> way, do we still want to clear those flags?
>>
>> Well, I would consider it safer to drop it always.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>>
>>>       Jakub
>>>
>>