On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > OK, so the explanation is not as simple as claim that non-POD types
>> > needs to be constructed or copied by constructor and C++ FE always
>> > generate an explicit vtbl store?
>>
>> No as optimizers may combine stores for example.
>
> Yep,
> > OK, so the explanation is not as simple as claim that non-POD types
> > needs to be constructed or copied by constructor and C++ FE always
> > generate an explicit vtbl store?
>
> No as optimizers may combine stores for example.
Yep, I understand we can design "evil" optimization that will ma
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:01:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > this patch makes stmt_may_be_vtbl_ptr_store to skip clobbers as discussed
>> > previously.
>>
>> This is the first time I hear about this but the change is ob
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:01:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this patch makes stmt_may_be_vtbl_ptr_store to skip clobbers as discussed
> > previously.
>
> This is the first time I hear about this but the change is obviously
> OK, thanks.
It actually seems to solve quite num
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:01:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch makes stmt_may_be_vtbl_ptr_store to skip clobbers as discussed
> previously.
This is the first time I hear about this but the change is obviously
OK, thanks.
> Martin, I do not fully follow the logic of this func