Hi,
On Mon, Feb 12 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In PR 113476 we have discovered that ipcp_param_lattices is no longer
>> a POD and should be destructed. This patch does that, calling
>> destructor on each element of the array containing them when the
>> corresponding summary of a node i
On Mon, Feb 12 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Believe it or not, even though I have re-worked the internals of the
>> lattices completely, the array itself is older than my involvement with
>> GCC (or at least with ipa-cp.c ;-).
>>
>> So it being an array and not a vector is historical coincidence, a
> Believe it or not, even though I have re-worked the internals of the
> lattices completely, the array itself is older than my involvement with
> GCC (or at least with ipa-cp.c ;-).
>
> So it being an array and not a vector is historical coincidence, as far
> as I am concerned :-). But that may
On Mon, Feb 12 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In PR 113476 we have discovered that ipcp_param_lattices is no longer
>> a POD and should be destructed. This patch does that, calling
>> destructor on each element of the array containing them when the
>> corresponding summary of a node is fre
> Hi,
>
> In PR 113476 we have discovered that ipcp_param_lattices is no longer
> a POD and should be destructed. This patch does that, calling
> destructor on each element of the array containing them when the
> corresponding summary of a node is freed. An alternative would be to
> change the X
Hi,
In PR 113476 we have discovered that ipcp_param_lattices is no longer
a POD and should be destructed. This patch does that, calling
destructor on each element of the array containing them when the
corresponding summary of a node is freed. An alternative would be to
change the XCNEWVEC-and-pl
