On 2017/2/28 14:38, Eyal Itkin wrote:
Hello,
I wanted to ask a question regarding the compilation of code samples
like the following:
"
int a = fetch_value();
int b = fetch_value();
int c = SOME_BIG_CONSTANT;
if ( c - b < a)
{
...
}
pass_value(a + b);
return a + b;
"
The value "a + b" is used 3 times in this snippet, while the first use
is hidden in the if check. It seems that changing the if check to "if
( c < a + b ) " will allow the compiler to generate a more efficient
assembly code: 1 addition, used 3 times. However in all of my checks,
all GCC versions will prefer to calculate both the subtraction and the
addition, and to only use the addition's result 2 times.
I am not sure but I believe that on some targets if (a + b) does
overflow you get an interrupt/exception. So these two expressions aren't
equivalent.
I know that the case with unsigned integers is that all operations are
done in a modulu 2 ^ 32, and so changing the condition will change the
logical meaning of the check.
However, in signed integers, the logical meaning of any relation check
is only the theoretical meaning of the order relation between the
numbers in the group Z. Meaning that in a purely theoretical manner "a
+ b < c" is a relation order that is equivalent to "a < c - b" or even
" 0 < c - b - a".
What does 'in a purely theoretical manner' mean? In purely mathematical
manner it may make sense, but in purely C programmatical manner it
doesn't make any sense at all.
The only exception here is about any possible
integer overflow (above MAX_INT) or underflow (below MIN_INT), however
such cases are specified to be undefined in the C standard, and should
not harm the possible efficiency of the code generation.
The original code doesn't contain any UB given (c - b) does not
underflow. You are no willing to transform code that doesn't contain UB
into code that contains UB, are you?
Since a C programmer that follows the standard, and writes such a code
check, means only to check relations between 3 signed numbers in the
group Z, is there a reason why not to update the if check and to
generate a more efficient code?
Just because we might be more efficient doesn't mean we should introduce UB.
In addition, is there a way to
optionally raise warning in similar cases, so to warn against possible
signed integer overflows, in case the programmer is not aware of the
dangers in his code.
I am not sure what you want but there is an option `-Wstrict-overflow`
that you may be interested in. Care must be taken that
`-Wstrict-overflow=3` or above generates a lot of false warnings.
--
Best regards,
LH_Mouse
