Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins


Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Ayonam Ray <ayonam@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:54:46 -0800
Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of iant@xxxxxxxxxx designates 10.229.136.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=iant@xxxxxxxxxx; dkim=pass header.i=iant@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1330480511; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: Received-SPF:Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Cc: Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=bb1WEbdlaGjpAz8BPxiWX4zBfl4=; b=iLhQR0sh/+tJdRn aLHgL/T4pBuS1wZ4O4h1fs6k0DHNe7HqOu6rDRe0rR/diKpV3mrWP68WXcwPtzx2 m9dOev3LuaH4noYHht8pUYms+5nhb8Xo+ntZUmFE2kE3y5vnCS4CxEcwSFqLiA4j 00a5lJAEzOp+kKjxc+ah7vOKaP5U=
In-reply-to: <CA+V5N8mwtV2zXq3gRxvfYaXvoqpHULk1T3dczNGjRTo_QnJSuA@mail.gmail.com> (Ayonam Ray's message of "Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:32:32 +0530")
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

Ayonam Ray <ayonam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> What I can't understand is that why is the RTL reordered right at the
> expand stage itself.  If I turn off the optimization, then the reorder
> at the expand stage doesn't happen.  This can be seen in the expand
> output at -O0.  I am wondering if there is some issue with the manner
> in which the built-ins are initialized which makes the compiler think
> that they do not affect program state.

It looks like the function calls are being rearranged before you ever
get to the RTL.  What does your original source code look like?  How
precisely are you defining the builtin functions?

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray

References:
- Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray

Prev by Date: RE: Please, there now has to be someone who can get this working!
Next by Date: Re: Please, there now has to be someone who can get this working!
Previous by thread: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
Next by thread: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]