This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Fw: Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:45:26 +0200
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1637972460.15325965.1471393300211.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1637972460.15325965.1471393300211.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <2c496f2e.1b46.15698e63833.Coremail.lh_mouse@126.com> <CAEwic4aRutFFCeb-gdKYJPiUnwtzXHx4+T4CrydSQkJ1Zra-dA@mail.gmail.com> <839193122.1815820.1472544155134@mail.yahoo.com> <1788021764.2444577.1472633832963@mail.yahoo.com>

On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, Toshi Morita wrote:

However, if the definition of pfoo is changed to:

const int * const pfoo = (const int * const 0x1234);


the optimization seems to fail:

The optimization is not valid in this case because the compiler cannotknow that the object was declared const. It could well be mutable.


Florian

References:
- Fw: Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?
  - From: Toshi Morita

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