On 7/30/19 3:09 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> 
>> On 7/30/19 1:35 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> +          /* Some delete operators have size as 2nd argument.  */
>>>
>>> Some delete operators have 3 arguments. From cp/decl.c:
>>>
>>>             /* operator delete (void *, size_t, align_val_t); */
>>>
>>
>> Yep, I know. The patch I installed expects at least 2 arguments:
>>
>> +                 /* Some delete operators have size as 2nd argument.  */
>> +                 if (is_delete_operator && gimple_call_num_args (stmt) >= 2)
> 
> True, I guess I am a bit confused why the second argument (which could be 
> either size or alignment) needs special handling (mark_operand_necessary) 
> while the third one does not (it is usually a constant).

Ah, that's bad, both of them need a care:

diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c
index bec13cd5930..80d5f5c30f7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c
@@ -824,13 +824,16 @@ propagate_necessity (bool aggressive)
                           || DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (def_callee) == 
BUILT_IN_CALLOC))
                      || DECL_IS_REPLACEABLE_OPERATOR_NEW_P (def_callee)))
                {
-                 /* Some delete operators have size as 2nd argument.  */
+                 /* Delete operators can have alignment and (or) size as next
+                    arguments.  When being a SSA_NAME, they must be marked
+                    as necessary.  */
                  if (is_delete_operator && gimple_call_num_args (stmt) >= 2)
-                   {
-                     tree size_argument = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
-                     if (TREE_CODE (size_argument) == SSA_NAME)
-                       mark_operand_necessary (size_argument);
-                   }
+                   for (unsigned i = 1; i < gimple_call_num_args (stmt); i++)
+                     {
+                       tree arg = gimple_call_arg (stmt, i);
+                       if (TREE_CODE (arg) == SSA_NAME)
+                         mark_operand_necessary (arg);
+                     }
 
                  continue;
                }

> 
> I tried to experiment to understand, but it is complicated because including 
> <new> disables the optimization:
> 
> #include <new>
> void fn1() {
>     char*p=new char;
>     delete p;
> }
> 
> This ICEs with -O -std=c++17:
> 
> int a = 64;
> std::align_val_t b{64};
> void fn1() {
>   void *s = operator new(a,b);
>   operator delete(s,8+*(unsigned long*)s,b);
> }
> 
> 

I can't see it on current master. Can you?

Martin

Reply via email to