From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-276032-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24263 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2010 16:00:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 24249 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2010 16:00:21 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_FN
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-qy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:00:02 +0000
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so2459489qyk.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.251.16 with SMTP id mq16mr960118qcb.118.1287676800574;        Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yakj.usersys.redhat.com (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com [209.132.186.34])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t17sm1549538qcp.14.2010.10.21.08.59.59        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);        Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CC0637D.8050108@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:53:00 -0000
From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100907 Fedora/3.1.3-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
CC: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use gcc_checking_assert instead of ENABLE_CHECKING/gcc_assert
References: <20101021114100.GE2806@nightcrawler> <AANLkTi=8fOOh8D6CWeacdFD+Q+pO46x_S2i_ZRv9zoRD@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=8fOOh8D6CWeacdFD+Q+pO46x_S2i_ZRv9zoRD@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg01847.txt.bz2

On 10/21/2010 01:45 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I think that #ifdefed loops are more easy to identify as enabled
> only in checkin mode.  And I'd be not so sure that the iterators
> themselves are optimized if the loop is empty (they have calls
> to non-inline fns at least).

Pointer chasing (e.g. on NEXT_INSN) is also not optimized, since it may 
trap.

Paolo