Fw: Possible missed optimization opportunity with const?

Toshi Morita tm314159@yahoo.com
Thu Sep 1 20:50:00 GMT 2016

> In cases like that, you can do your caching manually.  Just read the rom

> value once, and keep the value in a local variable - then it will stay
> in a local register.  If you have a lot to read and re-use, copy a block> to SRAM.  This is something that the compiler could never do on its own 
>  you have to write it in the code.

Yes, this is obvious, but in some cases this is not feasible, such as porting

a large codebase to a new platform with time constraints and/or porting
code where the license prohibits changing the code.

> This was already explained to you by Florian - the compiler cannot make
> the optimisation you want, because it does not know that the object at > address 0x1234 is truly constant.  The "const" in the pointer here can 
> only tell the compiler that /you/ will not try to change its value. 
> This is different from the case where you define pfoo from the address
> of foo, because you have defined foo to be constant - now the compiler
> knows it cannot change, and can optimise accordingly.
>  be able to get the kind of optimisation you are asking for, you would 
> need to be able to tell the compiler that the thing pfoo points to is 
> really constant - that would need a new __attribute__ or similar

> extension.  Alternatively, you would need a new __attribute__ to let you
> declare a const foo at a specific address (this might be easier, since > the relevant __attribute__ already exists for avr-gcc).

The --defsyms approach seems easier.


More information about the Gcc-help mailing list