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: Enforcing order of execution for function arguments


Andrew Haley wrote:
Chris Jefferson writes:

> One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++
> messageboards is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())"
> do not declare which order f() and g() will be executed in.
> > How hard would it be to fix the order of execution in gcc/g++?
> Could someone point me to the piece of code which must change, or
> if it is only a very small change, the actual change required? I
> would very much like to be able to benchmark this, as I can find no
> previous case where someone has tried fixing the order of execution
> to see if it actually makes any measureable difference.


The easiest way is during gimplification: you'd walk over the arglist
from left to right, calling

        gimplify_expr (&arg, pre_p, post_p,
		       is_gimple_formal_tmp_var, fb_rvalue);

on each arg.

But would it be sufficient?
I guess you would also have to make sure that further passes (i.e. out-of-ssa) do not revert what you have just done.


> Would anyone be interested in this being added as a command line argument?

That would be a Bad Thing.

Good that a bad thing is hard to implement, that's morality.


Cheers,
Roberto


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