lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 4/21] fix ARCH_HAS_PREFETCH
On 13 Aug 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

>...
> > > 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.
>
> Bullsh*t. It can legitimately transform it into:
>
> i = N;
>...

Ah, my misunderstanding:
"optimize away" didn't mean "completely remove it" but "transform it to
something semantically equivalent".

> -hpa

Thanks
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.321 / U:4.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site