https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:180625ae72b3f733813a360fae4f0d6ce79eccdc
commit r15-2756-g180625ae72b3f733813a360fae4f0d6ce79eccdc
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Moncef Mechri changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||moncef.mechri at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 104719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a
commit r12-7668-ge55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
From
https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Skipping-Over-Functions-and-Files.html#Skipping-Over-Functions-and-Files
it looks like you want skip -rf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> It seems the libstdc++ python hooks could set that up for users with
> gdb.execute ("skip std::move")?
No, that doesn't work. You need to use 'skip "std::mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11)
> I'm surprised that adding the "artificial" attribute didn't work; I thought
> the main point of that attribute was to automatically skip the function in
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
I should mention I noticed a significant reduction in compile time, memory
usage and unstripped object file size in some cases with the proposed patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
I'm surprised that adding the "artificial" attribute didn't work; I thought the
main point of that attribute was to automatically skip the function in the
debugger/profiler. I guess that never got implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As well as folding move and forward, it probably makes sense to do the same for
as_const and addressof (and our internal __addressof). addressof is
particularly annoying because it's uglier *and* slower tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But -O0 often compiles slower, because so much more code gets emitted and must
be assembled and linked.
So -O1 or -Og is often better for all of debugging and compilation speed and
runtime performance.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Romeo ---
> As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although
> I'd personally be happy with it unconditionally).
I think you should reconsider this as discussed in these places:
- https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, from a very quick test, it does exactly what I want.
As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although I'd
personally be happy with it unconditionally).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Created attachment 51732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51732&action=edit
rough patch that folds calls to std::move/forward
Does the attached rough patch help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think that would be great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to fold calls to std::move and std::forward
altogether in the frontend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-25
Status|UNCONFIRME
21 matches
Mail list logo
