bit twiddler - Page 300

storage terms clarification required

- by kumar

Hi, Having written some network drivers , I m bit new to storage world. I m hearing new terms like RAID,SATA,ATA,AHCI, etc., in this world. Please throw some light and relation between them Thx!

gcc optimization? bug? and its practial implication to project

Hi All, My questions are divided into three parts Question 1 Consider the below code, #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main( int argc, char *argv[]) { const int v = 50; int i = 0X7FFFFFFF; cout<<(i + v)<<endl; if ( i + v < i ) { cout<<"Number is negative"<<endl; } else { cout<<"Number is positive"<<endl; } return 0; } No specific compiler optimisation options are used or the O's flag is used. It is basic compilation command g++ -o test main.cpp is used to form the executable. The seemingly very simple code, has odd behaviour in SUSE 64 bit OS, gcc version 4.1.2. The expected output is "Number is negative", instead only in SUSE 64 bit OS, the output would be "Number is positive". After some amount of analysis and doing a 'disass' of the code, I find that the compiler optimises in the below format - Since i is same on both sides of comparison, it cannot be changed in the same expression, remove 'i' from the equation. Now, the comparison leads to if ( v < 0 ), where v is a constant positive, So during compilation itself, the else part cout function address is added to the register. No cmp/jmp instructions can be found. I see that the behaviour is only in gcc 4.1.2 SUSE 10. When tried in AIX 5.1/5.3 and HP IA64, the result is as expected. Is the above optimisation valid? Or, is using the overflow mechanism for int not a valid use case? Question 2 Now when I change the conditional statement from if (i + v < i) to if ( (i + v) < i ) even then, the behaviour is same, this atleast I would personally disagree, since additional braces are provided, I expect the compiler to create a temporary built-in type variable and them compare, thus nullify the optimisation. Question 3 Suppose I have a huge code base, an I migrate my compiler version, such bug/optimisation can cause havoc in my system behaviour. Ofcourse from business perspective, it is very ineffective to test all lines of code again just because of compiler upgradation. I think for all practical purpose, these kinds of error are very difficult to catch (during upgradation) and invariably will be leaked to production site. Can anyone suggest any possible way to ensure to ensure that these kind of bug/optimization does not have any impact on my existing system/code base? PS : When the const for v is removed from the code, then optimization is not done by the compiler. I believe, it is perfectly fine to use overflow mechanism to find if the variable is from MAX - 50 value (in my case).

Search Results

Search found 19796 results on 792 pages for 'bit twiddler'.

Page 300/792 | < Previous Page | 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 | Next Page >

- by kumar

- by kumar_m_kiran

- by werg

- by darrix

- by bEUY

- by Abbas

- by Radek

- by Benjamin Manns

- by Javier Badia

- by Oscar Cabrero

- by Pavan b

- by Benjamin Wong

- by Alex

- by Ygam

- by Jayan

- by davit-datuashvili

- by Ben Martin

- by user342391

- by duder

- by tangens

- by PieterG

- by pixeltocode

- by user296507

- by Sniperchild

- by Rich Bradshaw

< Previous Page | 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 | Next Page >