This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99?


On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Joshua Haberman <jhaberman@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, here is one case I tested where I was surprised GCC was not
> more aggressive:
>
> ?extern void bar();
> ?int foo(int *i) {
> ? ?if(*i) bar();
> ? ?return *i;
> ?}
>
> With GCC 4.4.1 -O3 (Ubuntu, x86-64) this reloads *i if bar is called. ?I
> suppose you have to allow that either "i" or "*i" is accessible as a
> global. ?But this is a pretty big bummer, because it means that any
> function call forces reloads of any data that was read from a pointer.
> "restrict" doesn't help here, nor does "const". ?The only way to prevent
> these reloads is to manually read the data into stack variable(s):
>
> ?extern void bar();
> ?int foo(int *i) {
> ? ?int i_val = *i;
> ? ?if(i_val) bar();
> ? ?return i_val;
> ?}

Well, i may point to any global integer variable and bar() might change it.
There's no way for a compiler to know that it does not unless it has access
to its function body.  You can mark the function with the pure or the const
attribute though.

Richard.


> Josh
>
>


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