From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BFE385BF81 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:34:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 50BFE385BF81 Received: from mail-qk1-f198.google.com (mail-qk1-f198.google.com [209.85.222.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-165-SzobEInCO_CyV-VMvum3Qg-1; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:34:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: SzobEInCO_CyV-VMvum3Qg-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id g13so33243qkk.11 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qxfuj4xfZkiCXEhXkI+kAJksUxwvamKNhPKeFZfDZxw=; b=CaDQ2XyGUUirVI5xyAhyOmtWDSkbVRg3Hq+BChRyDghUjxvb22Ovvc+Ka0FEruxDUk s3CN9dXFdv9jomRo+9p0RwyKseJd/PIsGp12Y9uj8CV0c02o8OxMeAJ8AkR815sOd1+n mNudyvwXTBKhOvZkfU0BsZqqR3mA+X8mjxvcG7YcUb6hkzC9L8z+xr71sePduUG4/sYH B+DX07NGFcDiceBn+P3ad7r8cJWrYkf1eCeZsb0Qvu6S5BIZfWCQ3rNXAfX7rnLFYqR+ TdCP9C8rZMKks7iyDRZqQTvkwY8stJ0SqLUe9elW/ahjd8wHyI78woNC3nWvgz6XYaGQ FVvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYJ4kU1PHx5Al25/wIMvUINbsiIOuzPcTrWT1gmdE2LHCSAQ4Bc V/bQ64k1JTqOfDcn3aelmYU+t6AWsv1JRlTewDprobQ07epCdTYKhmygsvJTF9j/4xdRIjcNmfl fFl3ioJdoaJnHWvsByw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:197d:: with SMTP id g58mr7752803qtk.297.1586352888141; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLq22pmCjMouBB0Mns8BOisGJ2ZlFsEi2S6vdFpkikxIgHikr0gZabj0bDQxXF56z+JZQ79mw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:197d:: with SMTP id g58mr7752771qtk.297.1586352887757; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.148] (209-6-216-142.s141.c3-0.smr-cbr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcncustomer.com. [209.6.216.142]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k3sm12451205qki.6.2020.04.08.06.34.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow new/delete operator deletion only for replaceable. To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Richard Biener , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , Marc Glisse , Jonathan Wakely , GCC Patches , Nathan Sidwell , Jan Hubicka References: <20200403152609.GA35629@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <0dbc191e-66f7-9878-956d-96149f20f5bf@suse.cz> <20200408133252.GG2212@tucnak> From: Jason Merrill Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:34:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200408133252.GG2212@tucnak> Content-Language: en-US X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:34:51 -0000 On 4/8/20 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches w= rote: >> On 4/8/20 4:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:01 PM Martin Li=C5=A1ka wrote= : >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> The patch allows DCE to remove only replaceable operators new and dele= te. >>>> That's achieved by proper mark up of all these operators in C++ FE. >>>> The patch also brings all tests we've collected so far for the PR. >>>> >>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. >>>> >>>> Ready to be installed? >>> >>> Grepping for uses of DECL_IS_OPERATOR_* reveals you miss comparing >>> the new flag in ipa-icf.c and cgraph node dumping in cgraph.c might wan= t >>> to dump it as well. >>> >>> Otherwise it looks reasonable. >>> >>> So the mid-end parts are OK in case FE people are happy with this solut= ion >>> for GCC 10. >> >> This seems fine for GCC 10, though I wonder about using an attribute for >> DECL_REPLACEABLE_OPERATOR rather than taking a bit in all FUNCTION_DECLs >> that will only ever be set on a small handful. >=20 > If it is just for GCC 10 and we'll return the bit back to unused in GCC 1= 1, > I'd think it is acceptable. Agreed. Jason