From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-34033-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21644 invoked by alias); 2 May 2003 12:06:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21623 invoked by uid 71); 2 May 2003 12:06:01 -0000
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 12:06:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030502120601.21621.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
Subject: Re: c++/8826: "a >> b" differs from "a.operator>>(b)" in that virtual function calls are not avoided
Reply-To: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/8826; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
To: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<niemayer@isg.de>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/8826: "a >> b" differs from "a.operator>>(b)" in that virtual function calls are not avoided
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:56:18 +0200

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8826
 
 Reconfirmed with everything up to current mainline (20030430). I agree this
 is a serious performance pessimization and it should be handled as soon as
 possible.
 I don't think there are any correctness problem though, since the compiler
 knows that a is exactly of type A (it's not a reference or a pointer), so
 it's always ok to inline the method, even without specifying
 a.A::operator>>() explitally.
 
 Giovanni Bajo