Maurizio Vitale writes: > > On Jul 6, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Maurizio Vitale writes: > >> Andrew Haley <aph-gcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> Maurizio Vitale writes: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Can somebody shed some light on this and hint at why GCC (and the > >>>> Intel compiler) decide that they cannot remove that code? > >>> > >>> It would be easy for us to do so if you provided a test case. > >>> Without > >>> one it's impossible. It doesn't look to me like the expression is > >>> totally dead, but without the source I can't tell. > >> > >> The entire source is large and I don't think it would help much other > >> than allowing people to run experiments on their own. > > > > Well, yes. Those of us reading might be able to figure out for > > ourselves what is happening! > > > > I don't want the entire source, just a snippet that demonstrates the > > problem. Is it impossible to do that? > > Impossible not, but rather problematic because it is all metatemplate > programming. > I'm working on reducing it, but would still need boost::mpl and > boost::proto. > How much source would be too much for this list? A few hundred lines is about the limit. In many cases the simple act of generating a real test case is sufficient to pinpoint the real core of the problem. It's far more useful to do that than to ask people on this list to guess where the problem might be. That is a huge waste of everyone's time. It's almost certain that the time spent preparing a test case will be more productive than the time spent by people on this list trying to guess what the problem might be. Right now, we can't even tell that there is a problem at all. Andrew.
