This is the mail archive of the 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: Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?

In your example the compiler is not given the guarantee that
the object 'foo' in question can only be modified through the pointer.

We can make such guarantee by adding the `restrict` qualifier
to the pointer, like this:

    const int *restrict pfoo = &foo;

With -O3 on GCC 6.1 the modified code produces:

    a: 1, b: 1

However as long as there is a restrict pointer pointing to an object,
modifying it _not_ through that pointer results in undefined behavior.

Best regards,

发件人:Toshi Morita <>
发送日期:2016-08-17 08:21
主题:Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?

I was involved in a discussion over the semantics of "const" in C, and the following code was posted: 

#include <stdio.h>
int foo = 0;
const int *pfoo = &foo;
void bar (void)
    foo +=3D;
int main(void)
   int a, b;
   a = *pfoo;
     b = *pfoo;
   printf("a: %d, b: %d\n", a, b);

This code when compiled with gcc 4.8.2 using the optimization option -O3 produces: 

a: 0, b: 1 

So it appears even though pfoo is a const int *, the value *pfoo is read twice. 

Would it be valid for the code to print a:0, b: 0?
If so, is this a missed optimization opportunity?


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