X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Sequence points, any? Date: 6 Apr 2006 19:54:38 GMT Lines: 29 Message-ID: <49l9vtFpguvkU1@news.dfncis.de> References: <1144238453 DOT 674596 DOT 302360 AT z34g2000cwc DOT googlegroups DOT com> <200604051406 DOT k35E6iOx002313 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <1144285170 DOT 583086 DOT 24610 AT v46g2000cwv DOT googlegroups DOT com> <49k31sFovesfU3 AT news DOT dfncis DOT de> X-Trace: news.dfncis.de D7PnJr55WxI1eTNGpthzxwVfPCFeuLwbLX1YZsumiDv5h6MTeH49hxt0pE X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Brian Inglis wrote: > That kind of optimization is forbidden unless the (external) function > is declared with attributes pure or const (clock is not), or the > compiler can sufficiently determine the effect of the (internal) > function: The latter is the case. The Ack() function in the example is completely self-contained, changes no static variables or has any other effect that any other function could possibly depend on --- except if that other function depends on volatile variables, which clock() happens to do. I.e. Ack() is a "pure" function, in terms of GCC attributes. For all the C standard is concerned, Ack() could be precomputed at compile time and implemented as a lookup table for all arguments below some threshold. OTOH, clock() isn't exactly deterministic to begin with, so there's no new indetermination added by this optimization --- it's just a gradual, not a qualitative change. > even declaring the internal function static did not change the code. That's because the compiler has determined already by itself that this call of the function can be treated as if it had internal linkage (i.e. as if it were declared static), and partially inlined it. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.