From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122895 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2019 13:30:24 -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 122713 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2019 13:30:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:30:14 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776A0AD44; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Come up with function_decl_type and use it in tree_function_decl. To: Marc Glisse Cc: Jason Merrill , Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Malcolm , dominik.infuehr@theobroma-systems.com, Nathan Sidwell References: <8305B5F4-2A96-4698-8C2E-3255658B5C12@theobroma-systems.com> <1511972121.27881.39.camel@redhat.com> <0dd24714-1f35-6a80-c607-7c8a332e95b9@suse.cz> <9D090495-3C97-4873-B0DF-2610B478F621@gmail.com> <70688da3-caf4-53c1-d0ee-63d16cbaadd9@suse.cz> <12f00f76-31c1-d3ca-a71b-c14b85892ef5@suse.cz> <6b43a610-4a16-cd1a-b7fa-ef2da7a77729@redhat.com> <74ce7d0b-2610-8cb6-4c22-60f9ed2bfc23@suse.cz> <3a940ca7-b024-61d1-3b05-6d36d3e22f25@suse.cz> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg01637.txt.bz2 On 7/25/19 2:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> DCE has special code to avoid removing the LHS of malloc when it is unused. Is there something different about operator new that makes it not need the same handling? > > If you take gcc.dg/torture/pr51692.c and replace __builtin_calloc (1, sizeof (double)) with new double(), we get an ICE with -O or higher... > I can see, I'm working on that. Martin