Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >|> for (i = 1; i < m; ++i)
| >|> {
| >|> if (i > 0)
| >|> bar ();
| >|> }
| >| Of course, this is an example where either the programmer is doing
| >| something very silly or else is expecting overflow and depending on
| >| wrap semantics, so it seems to me marginal to remove that "if". My
| >| suggestion would be to issue a warning saying that the test will never
| >| be false, but leaving it in.
| > That make sense to me.
|
| I'm worried about our ability to optimize deeply inlined code and things
| like template-heavy C++ code if do skip optimizations like this.
I suspect part of Richard K.'s questions has been to determine, based
on data, what improvements we actually gain from doing that kind of
elimination predicated on undefined-ness of signed integer
arithmetic overflow. It would be also useful to see how that affects
inlining (for inlining, we may be able to adequately annotate the trees).
I fear I haven't seen any.
-- Gaby
