Hi,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> here is variant of patch that drops the field walking from
> gimple_extract_devirt_binfo_from_cst completely. As pointed out
> by Jason, it is pointless since all structures have BINFO in C++
> and thus get_binfo_at_offset wi
> Hi,
> I went through some statistics on firefox build (it is a source combining
> many coding styles).
> I was basically curious where we do devirtualization. The result is:
>
> Before inline (i.e. important devirtualization)
> 624 ssa-pre devirt 0
> this is interaprocedural deviru
Hi,
I went through some statistics on firefox build (it is a source combining many
coding styles).
I was basically curious where we do devirtualization. The result is:
Before inline (i.e. important devirtualization)
624 ssa-pre devirt 0
this is interaprocedural devirutalization happe
Hi,
here is variant of patch that drops the field walking from
gimple_extract_devirt_binfo_from_cst completely. As pointed out
by Jason, it is pointless since all structures have BINFO in C++
and thus get_binfo_at_offset will do the job.
I would like to return the code back eventually to handle ar
> > On 08/17/2013 05:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > 1) we want the type to not have base because we may have inlined the
> > > constructor.
> > > During construction the vtables are filled by base's vtable and thus
> > > we can
> > > not simply devirtualize based on the final virtual ta
> On 08/17/2013 05:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > 1) we want the type to not have base because we may have inlined the
> > constructor.
> > During construction the vtables are filled by base's vtable and thus we
> > can
> > not simply devirtualize based on the final virtual table without
Jason Merrill wrote:
>On 08/17/2013 05:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> 1) we want the type to not have base because we may have inlined
>the constructor.
>> During construction the vtables are filled by base's vtable and
>thus we can
>> not simply devirtualize based on the final virtual t
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> I do not know if one can do
>> something like having automatic variable of class A and use placement new
>> to change it to class B.
>
>
> This is something of a grey area in the standard, with a few defect reports
> yet to be resolved. I
On 08/17/2013 05:44 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
1) we want the type to not have base because we may have inlined the
constructor.
During construction the vtables are filled by base's vtable and thus we can
not simply devirtualize based on the final virtual table without proving
that
Hi,
this patch tries to make gimple_extract_devirt_binfo_from_cst little bit more
sane and make it match bit more cases. Currently we seem to be able to
devirtualize only if the type in question has no basetypes (not even some not
having virtual methods at all) and it is the initial type implement
10 matches
Mail list logo
