This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request of new __attribute__ for switch statements (elimination of the bounds check)
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Kevin Lawton <kevinlawton2001 at yahoo dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:28:27 -0700
- Subject: Re: Request of new __attribute__ for switch statements (elimination of the bounds check)
- References: <20021011190521.57024.qmail@web80309.mail.yahoo.com> <20021015014101.GB27718@bjl1.asuk.net>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:41:01AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I would prefer to have an attribute on enumurated types that says a
> value of that type is always one of the enum values:
>
> enum __attribute__ ((strict_enum)) { CAT, FISH, RABBIT } Pet;
>
> (It would be appropriate to add a warning when an enum with this
> attribute is converted to an integer).
>
> Then any switch statement, without adornment, would be able to assume
> a value of that type is in the range. _If_ every enum label is
> mentioned in the switch, there is no need for the bounds check. (GCC
> already checks enum labels in a switch if `-Wswitch' is used, which
> may be helpful).
If there is an enumerated type that doesn't exhaust the domain of its
underlying integral type, then I confidently expect that a data
corruption bug will cause the switch to receive a selector outside the
domain of the enumeration; in that case I want there to be a
default:abort() in there so it gets caught early.
This does not mean that your idea is a bad one; the attribute could be
used for stricter type checking and more effective warnings, which is
a good thing. I just don't like the idea of using it to optimize out
bounds checks. (Instead, how about transforming your example
> Pet my_pet;
> /* ... */
> switch (my_pet) {
> case CAT: /* ... */
> case FISH: /* ... */
> case RABBIT: /* ... */
> }
by inserting the default:abort() for the programmer?)
> You can use this attribute to achieve Kevin's goal of faster threaded
> interpretation, but it is a bit ugly. For a byte-code dispatch, you'd
> have to define an enum with 256 scratch names, and cast your byte to
> that type in the switch. For a sparse dispatch, you'd have to use a
> different enum type. It's a bit ugly but might be ok with macros.
I would far rather solve this problem by having us notice when a
dispatch switch() really has exhausted the domain of the integral
type of its argument (before conversion to int).
zw