This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [doc] empty loops]

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:28:01 -0800
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [doc] empty loops]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at 08:31 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:

I confused myself with the example.  I meant it to point out that
even non-empty C loops can be optimized to empty ones.  How about this
adjusted wording that leaves it open to when such loops actually get
deleted.

! Be aware of this when performing timing tests, for instance the
! following loop can be completely removed, provided
! @code{some_expression} can provably not change any global state.

Well, since we are into the word smithing now, I might as well point out that that isn't guarantee that the loop will not be removed. volatile int i; ++i; is in short one of the few things that might not be removed. Consider -fwhole-program and the direction Kenny wants to go.

References:
- [Fwd: Re: [doc] empty loops]
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]