https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
Bug ID: 110057
Summary: Missed devirtualization opportunities
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #3 from Ng YongXiang ---
I'm giving the example of an array for now, because gcc treatment of the
destructor is inconsistent and depends on the length of the array. Clang on the
other hand is able to devirtualize the destructor in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #4 from Ng YongXiang ---
Would anyone be able to direct me to which portion of the code is responsible
for this threshold between len 2 & 3 array? Is this the responsibility of the
c++ frontend? or is it still related to the optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #6 from Ng YongXiang ---
That is interesting. Thanks for the reply.
However, I'd argue that the 2 bugs mentioned are different from what I am
proposing. The 2 bugs linked access virtual functions via ptr (delete p;
val->f();) and ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
Ng YongXiang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yongxiangng at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #8 from Ng YongXiang ---
Just added a patch to illustrate the array destruction issue. What do you
think?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057
--- Comment #9 from Ng YongXiang ---
Would anyone be willing to provide some feedback regarding the attachment
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55256&action=diff) that I have
created? Thanks.
