This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: bounds-check intentionally undocumented?


"John Hughes" <john@Calva.COM> writes:

> > * Improve optimization: eliminate redundant checks, and make gcc treat
> >   auto BPs as register-allocable triples, rather than its current
> >   behavior of forcing them (as it does most structs) into stack slots.
> 
> Will this optimisation be specific to fat pointers, or available to
> other structs?

Doing it for all structs is the only sensible way to proceed, IMO.

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