https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113476 > > --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > > > The right place where to free stuff in lattices post-IPA would be in > > > ipa_node_params::~ipa_node_params() where we should iterate over lattices > > > and deinitialize them or perhaps destruct the array because since > > > ipcp_vr_lattice directly contains Value_Range which AFAIU directly > > > contains > > > int_range_max which has a virtual destructor... does not look like a POD > > > anymore. This has escaped me when I was looking at the IPA-VR changes but > > > hopefully it should not be too difficult to deal with. > > > > OK, that might work for the IPA side. > > > > It's quite unusual to introduce a virtual DTOR in the middle of the class > > hierarchy though. Grepping I do see quite some direct uses of 'irange' > > and also 'vrange' which do not have the DTOR visible but 'irange' already > > exposes and uses 'maybe_resize'. I think those should only be introduced > > in the class exposing the virtual DTOR (but why virtual?!). > > > > Would be nice to have a picture of the range class hierarchies with > > pointers on which types to use in which circumstances ... > > For reference, you should always use the most base class you can. If > you can get the work done with the vrange API, use that. If you're > dealing with an integer, use irange. The int_range<> derived class > should only be used for defining a variable, so: > > int_range<123> foobar; // Defined with storage. > > if (is_a <irange>) > { > irange &p = as_a <irange> (foobar); > ... > } > > // Use an irange reference here, not an int_range reference. > void somefunc (const irange &r) > { > } > > Also, the reason irange does not have a destructor is because it has > no storage. Only int_range<> has storage associated with it, so it is > the only one able to see if the range grew: But when I do irange *r = new int_range<>; delete r; then it will fail to release memory? Are virtual DTORs not exactly invented for this, when you delete on a reference/pointer to a base class but the object is really a derived one? That's what I was refering to with "introducing a virtual DTOR in a not base-class". I still think that's bad OO design, no?
