[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2025-06-04 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95384 ***

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2023-07-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Dup

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95405 ***

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2023-04-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||david at westcontrol dot com

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski  ---
*** Bug 109631 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2021-07-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski  ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> and yes, if it would have had TImode we could expand it to a register pair
> but it has BLKmode because it's TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING(?), the type
> isn't TREE_ADDRESSABLE for me.

Yes TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING, I had thought they were the same bit but I am
wrong.

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2021-07-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener  ---
I think the issue is simply that RTL expansion forces the object to memory
since that is what GIMPLE does:

struct optional foo ()
{
  struct optional D.12374;

   [local count: 1073741824]:
  MEM  [(struct optional *)&D.12374] = 0;
  MEM  [(struct optional *)&D.12374 + 8B] = 1;
  return D.12374;
}

and yes, if it would have had TImode we could expand it to a register pair
but it has BLKmode because it's TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING(?), the type
isn't TREE_ADDRESSABLE for me.

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2021-07-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2021-07-05
   Severity|normal  |enhancement
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Take:
struct g {
  unsigned long b;
};

struct a
{
  struct g g1;
  unsigned char c;
};

static inline void h(struct g *a)
{
  a->b = 0;
}

static inline void j(struct a *a)
{
  h(&a->g1);
  a->c = 1;
}

struct a f(void)
{
  struct a a;
  j(&a);
  return a;
}

 CUT 
It works, I suspect in the case of std::optional, std::optional is marked as
BLKmode rather than TImode as the struct is marked as "ADDRESSABLE".

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

2021-07-05 Thread tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326

--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina  ---
last example for x86 should have been

foo():# @foo()
xor eax, eax
mov dl, 1
ret