On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I'm really surprised it's as much as a few K. I tried it on powerpc
> > and it only saved 40 bytes (10 instructions) for a G5 config.
>
> One of the things that "volatile" generally screws up is a simple
>
> volatile int i;
>
> i++;
>
> which a compiler will generally get horribly, horribly wrong.
>
> In a reasonable world, gcc should just make that be (on x86)
>
> addl $1,i(%rip)
>
> on x86-64, which is indeed what it does without the volatile. But with the
> volatile, the compiler gets really nervous, and doesn't dare do it in one
> instruction, and thus generates crap like
>
> movl i(%rip), %eax
> addl $1, %eax
> movl %eax, i(%rip)
>
> instead. For no good reason, except that "volatile" just doesn't have any
> good/clear semantics for the compiler, so most compilers will just make it
> be "I will not touch this access in any way, shape, or form". Including
> even trivially correct instruction optimization/combination.
Apart from having to fetch more bytes for the instructions (which does
matter), execution time is probably the same on modern processors, as they
convert the single instruction to RISC-style load, modify, store anyway.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
