[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #15 from Patrick Marlier 2011-02-04 20:30:15 UTC --- Filled a enhancement http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611 Yeah don't lose time of this! On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:1

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-02-04 20:16:07 UTC --- Yes, this is an improvement, because once has to figure out why the unadultered new operator is not handled specially by the alias oracle. You are welcome to file a PR as an enhance

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier 2011-02-04 20:13:04 UTC --- Hi Aldy, On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:40 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 > > --- Comment #12 from A

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-02-04 18:40:09 UTC --- Patrick, the reason memory allocated by the C++ new operator does not get optimized by the TM-memopt pass is not because of a missing ECF_MALLOC attribute, but because the alias orac

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-02-04 15:31:14 UTC --- Patrick. It's already on my TODO. I'm working on it.

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Marlier 2011-02-04 13:54:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > I will tackle the ECF_MALLOC comment separately. Should I open up a new bug report for this? or is it already on your TODO list? Patrick Marlier.

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernand

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Patrick Marlier changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier 2010-12-23 16:27:47 UTC --- Aldy. I think you should declare it 'transaction_safe' and not 'transaction_pure' since symbols in the libitm are binded to safe: _ZGTtnwm; _ZGTtnam; _ZGTtdl

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-12-23 16:19:12 UTC --- Patrick. You will find out that when hacking on GCC, everything is intrusive in non-obvious ways :). What I had in mind was something simple like this, since push_cp_library_fn() on

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier 2010-12-23 15:45:15 UTC --- Actually, I was guessing that the patch was not intrusive. Wrong guess, play again... I should really spend more time on hacking gcc ;) Anyway, Thank you for your advices! (I will f

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier 2010-12-22 10:11:54 UTC --- Created attachment 22839 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22839 proposed patch to add safe attribute to new delete operators gcc/cp/decl.c: build_library_fn_1() a