This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Empty loops removal (Was Re: Some extra decorations)
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd dot net>, Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, rguenther at suse dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:21:47 -0700
- Subject: Re: Empty loops removal (Was Re: Some extra decorations)
- References: <20090503162856.GA14670@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <49FDCA64.9010305@oracle.com> <20090503165810.GD8120@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <D9C8BA04062F4817BF148D6EC986D402@pdimov2> <20090503230618.GA15063@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905032312180.9584@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4348dea50905031617v399978e5tef24db63e38edef@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, the rule is new for C++0x, and it is in the context of for, while
> and do-while loops only, not recursive calls.
Does this include loops form from gotos also? Because this seems like
it is very limited and not useful for optimizations in general. GCC
loop optimizations are not based on the source level constructs but
instead of based on the CFG.
-- Pinski