On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Andrew Haley<aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Frank Neuhaus wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Andrew Haley<aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> If gcc inlines Image::resize, it knows that pixels does not escape, and whatever >>> is in pixels cannot have any effect elsewhere. >>> >> I still don't precisely understand the reason for this behavior. > Well, I did tell you. :-) Well kind of. You said: "If gcc inlines Image::resize, it knows that pixels does not escape, and whatever is in pixels cannot have any effect elsewhere." I would just like to know how the behavior prevents those 'bad' things from happening i.e.: How does not caching the pixels pointer in a local variable in front of the loop prevent pixels from "escaping"? (What does that mean by the way if a pixel "escapes"?) How does not caching the pixels pointer, prevent pixels to have "effects elsewhere"? Or vice versa: How does caching the pixels pointer cause "effects elsewhere"? (Again: What are those "effects" that could be caused?) Thanks Frank
