Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 21:08 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> > >> but the code generated seem to test %esi (`b', potentially >> uninitialized) before %ebx (`a'). Am I still missing something ? > > But it tests 'a' again afterward. If 'a' is 0, it doesn't matter what > 'b' was. So the uninitialized test is a wash. No harm done, except for > some wasted CPU cycles. > I see, even if `b' is junk, the final logic does not change. - Arnaud
