> On 03/17/2014 04:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >Thank you! would preffer different marker than cxa_pure_virtual in the > >vtable, > >most probably simply NULL. > > > >The reason is that __cxa_pure_virtual will appear as a possible target in the > >list and it will prevent devirtualization to happen when we end up with > >__cxa_pure_virtual and real destructor in the list of possible targets. > > Hmm? __cxa_pure_virtual is not considered likely, so why wouldn't > devirtualization choose the real function instead?
If you get list like ~foo(), __cxa_pure_virtual, you will get speculative devirtualization to ~foo. If you get ~foo(), NULL, the NULL will get translated to BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE and that will be dropped from the list, so you will end up with unconditional call of ~foo(). I think in general we can not skip cxa_pure_virtual, since people want friendly diagnostics on broken programs insted of getting devirtualized call to random other function. I was under impression in this case we know that the virtual table entry won't be used, so full devirtualization would be possible. > > >gimple_get_virt_method_for_vtable knows that lookup in vtable that do not > >result in FUNCTION_DECL should be translated to BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE and > >ipa-devirt drops these from list of targets, unlike __cxa_pure_virtual that > >stays. > > I don't see the reason for that distinction; either way you get > undefined behavior. The only purpose of __cxa_pure_virtual is to > give a friendly diagnostic before terminating the program. I can drop the handling of cxa_pure_virtual if unconditoinal devirtualization is desirable, or perhaps do it under some switch. Targets list containing one cxa_pure_virtual and one extra function are common. > > >Other problem with cxa_pure_virtual is that it needs external relocation. > >I sort of wondered if we don't want to produce hidden comdat wrapper for > >it, so C++ programs are easier to relocate. > > Sure, that would make sense. > > >What do you think of the following patch that makes ipa-devirt to conclude > >that destructor calls are never done on types in construction. > >If effect of doing so is undefined, I think it is safe to drop them from > >list of targets and that really helps to reduce lists down. > > That looks good to me. Thanks, I am away for next 4 days to allaska hut w/o electricity, will check my email afterwards, > > Jason