On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2002-08-11 at 08:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > This information loss is unfortunate. Examples:
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
> > > prefetch(foo[i]);
> > >
> > > Problem is, if `prefetch' is a no-op, the compiler will still
> > > generate an empty busy-wait loop. Which it must do.
> >
> > Why - nothing there is volatile
>
> Because the compiler sees:
>
> for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
> ;
>
> and it says "ah ha. A busy wait delay loop" and leaves it alone.
>
> It's actually a special-case inside the compiler to not optimise
> away such constructs.
Why is this a special case? As long as a compiler can't prove that the
computed value of i isn't used later it mustn't optimize it away.
Kernighan/Ritchie (German translation of the second edition) contains the
following example program that shows why the compiler mustn't optimize it
away:
<-- snip -->
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
double nc;
for (nc = 0; getchar() != EOF; ++nc)
;
printf("%.0f\n", nc);
}
<-- snip -->
cu
Adrian
--You only think this is a free country. Like the US the UK spends a lot of time explaining its a free country because its a police state. Alan Cox
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:34 EST