On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 8/6/19 5:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, I'm sending patch that considers only such new/delete operators
> >> that are not a clone of an original type. That should make the current
> >
2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:14:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Detect not-cloned new/delete operators in DCE.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-08-06 Martin Liska
* gimple.c (gimple_call_operator_delete_p): Remove.
* gimple.h (gimple_call_operator_delete_p): Lik
On 8/6/19 7:02 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately I cannot look into the problem now and I don't have my
> phone set up to review patches in a sane way, but to answer your
> question below...
Thank you Martin for answer. It can definitely wait once you're back
at the office.
>
>
Hi,
unfortunately I cannot look into the problem now and I don't have my
phone set up to review patches in a sane way, but to answer your
question below...
On Tue, Aug 06 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/6/19 2:42 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
...
>> Hm, strange that the ISRA clones don't have n->cl
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
Anyway, I'm sending patch that considers only such new/delete operators
that are not a clone of an original type. That should make the current
DCE code more solid.
DECL_IS_REPLACEABLE_OPERATOR_NEW_P seems to have been replaced with
DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW_
can then remove the inner pair
>> instead, count increases and decreases, fine. If we inline only one of them,
>> and DCE the mismatched pair new/delete, we get something inconsistent (count
>> is -1).
>>
>> This seems to indicate we should check that
