[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7329d7bb-c9cd-8eb2-12c2-0b6d5cc2accf@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:31:44 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
xiang xiao <xiaoxiang781216@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] tty: add rpmsg driver
On 26. 03. 20, 11:59, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>
>
> On 3/26/20 1:01 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 14:31 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> The question was exactly about that: can a compiler optimize it to a
>>> bare number or will strlen call remain there?
>>
>> $ cat str.c
>> #include <string.h>
>>
>> int foo(void)
>> {
>> return strlen("abc");
>> }
>>
>> $ gcc -c -O2 str.c
>> $ objdump -d str.o
>> str.o: file format elf64-x86-64
>>
>>
>> Disassembly of section .text:
>>
>> 0000000000000000 <foo>:
>> 0: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
>> 4: b8 03 00 00 00 mov $0x3,%eax
>> 9: c3 retq
>>
>>
> same result with arm gcc using -O1 or -Og:
>
> str.o: file format elf32-littlearm
>
>
> Disassembly of section .text:
>
> 00000000 <foo>:
> 0: e3a00003 mov r0, #3
> 4: e12fff1e bx lr
>
> So in conclusion replacing sizeof by srlen even if not optimized in -o0, right?
Right, gcc guys just confirmed, that it's constant-folded during parsing
already. I asked them as I tried to dump the tree.original and the
constant was already there.
So we are safe to use strlen, at least for gcc :P. Others should adapt
if they don't follow.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists