https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to hyc from comment #19) > That's all well and good. But, somebody had to go out of their way to > develop the code to identify this case of new as being a dead store. Why was > this worth anyone's time to do so? What performance benefit does this > "optimization" bring, and is it really worth all of the obviously known > breakage that it causes? I don't know the answers to those questions, but somebody did do the effort to implement it and test it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00782.html and then add various options to control it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01651.html so they probably have their own motivation to do this instead of something else. Nobody raised any objections at the time. > We all have important things to be doing. It doesn't appear that the time > invested in this "feature" was time well spent. For better or worse, we don't get to decide on what other people spent their own time unless we pay them.