[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: immediate strings #2
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: immediate strings #2 |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:48:17 -0500 |
On Nov 29, 2011, at 03:44, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Well, I think Stefan's technically right... the "as-if" rule lets the
>> compiler get away with a lot, if it can analyze enough of the program
>> to figure out that it wouldn't make a difference to the semantics
>
> Only if the address is never taken, or sizeof is never applied.
If the compiler really wants to play some games in the name of space
optimization, it could pack the type as densely as possible (rearrange or
eliminate fields, limit integer or pointer fields to the number of bits that
will actually get used, etc) for actual storage, and still print sizes and
offsets consistent with the official alignment rules for the platform, if it
can keep the two cases straight. (Allocating the actually-used smaller size
instead of the larger "normal" size would still be consistent as long as the
difference isn't visible by certain criteria; I'm pretty sure process size
under "ps" isn't one of those criteria.) It'd be a lot of effort and probably
not worthwhile, but not outside of the rules.
Ken
- immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2,
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/30
Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/30