This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
optimization/7476: constant variable tested in loop
- From: Kevin Ryde <user42 at zip dot com dot au>
- To: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:59:32 +1000
- Subject: optimization/7476: constant variable tested in loop
>Number: 7476
>Category: optimization
>Synopsis: constant variable tested in loop
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: pessimizes-code
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Fri Aug 02 16:06:01 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:
>Release: 3.1.1 20020606 (Debian prerelease) (Debian testing/unstable)
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: Linux blah 2.2.15 #1 Tue Apr 25 17:13:48 EST 2000 i586 unknown
Architecture: i586
<machine, os, target, libraries (multiple lines)>
host: i386-pc-linux-gnu
build: i386-pc-linux-gnu
target: i386-pc-linux-gnu
configured with: /mnt/data/gcc-3.1/gcc-3.1-3.1.1ds1/src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c++,java,f77,proto,objc,ada --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/g++-v3-3.1 --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --enable-long-long --enable-nls --without-included-gettext --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-threads=posix --enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-objc-gc i386-linux
>Description:
A constant variable tested within a loop doesn't seem to be
recognised as constant.
>How-To-Repeat:
The file foo.c below compiled with
gcc-3.1 -O9 -S foo.c
produces the foo.s below. Notice that it still contains a call to
"puts", despite the "cond" variable in the source always being false.
Outside a loop such a construct seems to be recognised as constant and
the dependent code goes dead, but within a loop that doesn't seem to
happen.
I'm not sure if it's too much to expect something like this in a loop
to go dead. I guess in the presence of gotos or loops it's not always
too easy to be certain something really is constant. A variable
written only once with a constant value like this might be tractable
though.
For what it's worth this arose within gmp where the "cond" condition
tested was sometimes a compile-time constant, or sometimes a runtime
test, depending on the configuration. It had seemed like a good idea
just to put the result in a variable in either case, and let the
optimizer drop unused code in the constant case.
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-csrc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=foo.c
void
foo (void)
{
int cond = 0;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
if (cond)
puts ("hello");
}
--=-=-=
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=foo.s
.file "foo.c"
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "hello"
.text
.align 2
.p2align 2,,3
.globl foo
.type foo,@function
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
pushl %esi
pushl %ebx
xorl %esi, %esi
movl $9, %ebx
.p2align 2,,3
.L7:
testl %esi, %esi
jne .L10
.L4:
decl %ebx
jns .L7
leal -8(%ebp), %esp
popl %ebx
popl %esi
leave
ret
.p2align 2,,3
.L10:
subl $12, %esp
pushl $.LC0
call puts
addl $16, %esp
jmp .L4
.Lfe1:
.size foo,.Lfe1-foo
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.1.1 20020703 (Debian prerelease)"
--=-=-=--
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
--=-=-=