Christian Sturn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:03:51 -0500
> Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There is no support for dumping actual valid source code, though,
> > > and it is unlikely that there ever will be.
> >
> > And indeed it is not in general possible,
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:03:51 -0500
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no support for dumping actual valid source code, though,
> > and it is unlikely that there ever will be.
>
> And indeed it is not in general possible, there are many optimizations
> that cannot be expressed in
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Christian Sturn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thank you for your answer. Is there any chance to have gcc dump out
an optimized code in the form the source level language, e.g. can I run
gcc with some optimizations and see how the compiler modified my C
source code?
You
Christian Sturn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you for your answer. Is there any chance to have gcc dump out
> an optimized code in the form the source level language, e.g. can I run
> gcc with some optimizations and see how the compiler modified my C
> source code?
You can get an approxima
> > 1) For the function foo10:
> > The if-block following "if( i == 15 )" will be never executed since
> > 'i' will never become 15 here. So, this entire block could be
> > removed without changing the semantics. This would improve the
> > program execution since the if-condition does not need to b
On 12/28/06, Christian Sturz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I was curious if there are any gcc compiler optimizations that can
improve this code:
void foo10( )
{
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i )
{
[...]
if( i == 15 ) { [BLOCK1] }
}
}
void foo100( )
{
for ( int i = 0; i < 100; ++i
