> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Dave Korn
> Sent: 17 November 2004 11:58
Just to enlarge slightly on my own response:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Luca Benini
> > Sent: 17 November 2004 11:41
>
> > Robert Dewar wrote:
> >
> > > not!
> >
> > Now I see the light.
> >
> >
> > But in this case the asm produced are not the same.
>
>
> If the compiler had to produce the exact same asm at -O0
> and -O2, how on earth
> could one be optimised more than the other?
More than that: we all agree that the compiler is entitled to make
assumptions that the input code is valid, and that if those assumptions are
wrong the output code the compiler produces will be wrong.
Now if you add increasing amounts of optimisations to the compilation (as when
you go from -O0 to -O2), each of those extra optimisations makes further
assumptions about the validity of the code. So when the code is invalid, more
assumptions are violated at -O2 than at -O0; so it is only to be expected that
the output code will be invalid in more and different ways.
It might perhaps be possible to rewrite the optimisers so the code they
generated always failed in the same way when the compiler was fed with bad
input, but it would 1) cost a large amount of man-hours of work, and 2) involve
not allowing the optimisers to make (as many of) those assumptions, which would
in turn lead to 3) far less identifiable opportunities for optimisations when
the compiler was fed with good code.
So it would comprehensively not be worth the effort to make gcc give code that
produced the same results when fed with this bad code.
However as I mentioned, the behaviour of unsigned integers in overflow
conditions IS well defined, and so if the compiler produced code that behaved
differently at -O0 and -O2 when you took that example code and changed "int" to
"unsigned int" everywhere, that *would* be a genuine compiler bug, and one that
would need fixing.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
