From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: no-op delay loops
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:17:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3228673.rOyW85ILiP@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <87si3rbz6p.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
References: <87si3rbz6p.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1100
Lines: 33

On Friday 27 November 2015 09:53:50 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 
> It seems that gcc happily compiles
> 
> for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; ++i) ;
> 
> into simply
> 
> i = 1000000000;
> 
> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
> when i is not declared volatile. So it would seem that the loops at
> 
> arch/mips/pci/pci-rt2880.c:235
> arch/mips/pmcs-msp71xx/msp_setup.c:80
> arch/mips/sni/reset.c:35
> 
> actually don't do anything. (In the middle one, i is 'register', but
> that doesn't change anything.) Is mips compiled with some special flags
> that would make gcc actually emit code for the above?
> 

I remember that gcc used to not optimize code that looked like a
delay loop such as the above, and my tests show that this was still
the case in gcc-4.0.3, but starting with gcc-4.1 it opimtized away
that loop.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/