From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>
Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: sparse -Wptr-subtraction-blows: still needed?
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:24:54 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0705011719520.3808@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4637D47D.7040203@freedesktop.org>
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> Do you know whether the current version of GCC generates poor code for pointer
> subtraction?
You _cannot_ generate good code.
When you subtract two pointers, the C definition means that you first
subtract the values (cheap), and then you *divide* the result by the size
of the object the pointer points to (expensive!).
So pointer subtraction is by definition expensive, if the size of the
object is not some kind of nice power-of-two or similar.
Of course, modern CPU's are getting better at divides.
> Has anyone reported this poor code generation to the GCC bugzilla? If so, I
> can add a reference to the bug in any (hypothetical) documentation for
> -Wptr-subtraction-blows.
The only thing that was gcc-specific about it is that gcc goes to some
extreme lengths to turn the constant-sized division into a sequence of
shifts/multiples/subtracts, and can often turn a division into something
like ten cheaper operations instead.
But that optimization was also what made gcc take such a long time if the
constant division is very common (ie a header file with an inline
function, whether that function is actually _used_ or not apparently
didn't matter to gcc)
So gcc does pretty well on these divisions, and makes them cheaper (except
on CPU's where divides are really fast and possibly even cheaper than the
combination of shifts/subtracts, but afaik, that probably won't be until
the next-generation Intel Core 2 45nm "Penryn" thing)
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-02 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-01 21:08 Josh Triplett
2007-05-01 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-01 23:59 ` Josh Triplett
2007-05-02 0:24 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2007-05-02 0:35 ` Al Viro
2007-05-02 12:02 ` Alan Cox
2007-05-02 13:19 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-02 0:26 ` Al Viro
2007-05-02 0:02 ` Al Viro
2007-05-02 2:42 ` Dave Jones
2007-05-02 13:03 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.0.98.0705011719520.3808@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=josh@freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®