This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Low overhead looping support
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Low overhead looping support
- From: Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 17:59:05 +1300 (NZDT)
- Cc: Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- References: <"14051.23377.35212.48656"@ongaonga.elec.canterbury.ac.nz><972.920943339@upchuck>
Jeffrey A Law writes:
> In message <email@example.com>you write:
> > For the compiler to tell that this is safe, it will need to perform
> > range tracking and the user would have to use assert statements.
> > In the interim, I still think that a compiler option is best.
> No. I disagree strongly. We do not want pragmas or compile time options
> like this.
> If it's that important, then we need to start think about doing enough
> range propagation to make this case work.
While this is a desirable approach in the long term, it would mean
that users would have to plaster assert statements throughout their C
In addition, some of these special looping instructions have other
caveats (such as disabling interrupts), and as such, their use
requires a (target specific) compiler option anyway.