https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #14 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
The gcc patch also fixes original liferea+webkit-gtk-2.28.4 crash. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
wrong-code should be now fixed, keeping open if Richard or Honza don't want to
improve handling of non-replaceable delete operators.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78c4a9feceaccf487516aa1eff417e0741556e10
commit r11-5748-g78c4a9feceaccf487516aa1eff417e0741556e10
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Oops, yes, dunno why it didn't work for me before, confirmed now that it
> works with the patch and fails without.
>
> I think we want it even for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
valid_new_delete_pair_p checks the extra constraints C++ has, like that if you
allocate with a particular replaceable operator new, you can free it only with
those and those replaceable operator delete and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Oops, yes, dunno why it didn't work for me before, confirmed now that it
> works with the patch and fails without.
>
> I think we want it even for the operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, yes, dunno why it didn't work for me before, confirmed now that it works
with the patch and fails without.
I think we want it even for the operator delete case, I believe the C++
standard only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> That would mean:
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr98130.C.jj 2020-12-04 12:30:11.510988404
> +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr98130.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> > So, shouldn't the code match what the comment says?
> > /* If the call is to a replaceable operator delete and results
> > from a delete expression as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> So, shouldn't the code match what the comment says?
> /* If the call is to a replaceable operator delete and results
> from a delete expression as opposed to a direct call to
> such operator,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That would mean:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr98130.C.jj 2020-12-04 12:30:11.510988404
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr98130.C 2020-12-04 12:33:05.663028984 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed. The issue is that placement new is _not_ __attribute__((malloc)),
it makes PTA consider the object not escaping and then we have DSE do
;; Function append (_ZL6appendPi, funcdef_no=1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98130
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[11 regression]
16 matches
Mail list logo
