This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimisation question
- From: "Remy X.O. Martin" <vsxo at hotmail dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:38:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: optimisation question
- References: <20050131152659.0dc92d6c@portia.local><41FE6ADB.3070706@adacore.com><20050131234317.GA4737@synopsys.com><20050201182110.192883b1@portia.local><jevf9cdwe9.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:26:22 +0100, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote regarding "Re:
optimisation question"
8-) > Here's another 'trick' I learned in those days: use a=b, c=d, e=f; rather
8-) > than a=b; c=d; e=f; (like in the initialisation expression of a for
8-) > loop). "The first version might be executed in parallel. Of course we
8-) And of course it is wrong, because the comma operator creates a sequence
8-) point (but K&R C didn't have sequence points yet).
A sequence point is (more or less) a situation where the exact order of execution/evaluation is undefined, no? But that's exactly potential parallel execution implies, no?
R.