Re: Low overhead looping support

[Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>]

Jeffrey A Law writes:
 > 
 >   In message <14051.23377.35212.48656@ongaonga.elec.canterbury.ac.nz>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
code.  

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.

Michael.