From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56015 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2017 17:36:11 -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 55860 invoked by uid 89); 21 Nov 2017 17:36:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:36:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A75F95FD6C; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-12.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.12]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B885D960; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extend DCE to remove unnecessary new/delete-pairs To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dominik_Inf=c3=bchr?= Cc: GCC Patches References: <8305B5F4-2A96-4698-8C2E-3255658B5C12@theobroma-systems.com> <21ed3448-5c28-c43d-c437-1ca7d6250a03@redhat.com> <4F97134B-FF1E-4527-AF5B-259063F4A8F7@theobroma-systems.com> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F97134B-FF1E-4527-AF5B-259063F4A8F7@theobroma-systems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg01940.txt.bz2 On 11/21/2017 10:30 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote: > Thanks for the reply, I know that it’s too late for GCC 8. I wanted to get some feedback on this patch, so I could address all issues until GCC 9 development starts. But I suppose it is better to just post it again later. The problem is most folks' attention will be on bugfixing for the next few months. I did quickly scan the patch and didn't see anything terribly concerning other than extending the one structure which folks will want to look at more closely. We always look closely at extending any core data structures as that impacts memory usage. I'll probably have to refer to the C++ experts on any specific language issues that come into play when we open the trunk up again for new development and come back to the patch. Jeff