[Numpy-discussion] Changeset 6557

[Charles R Harris]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The macro is ugly, unneeded, and obfuscating. Why construct a number from
> > characters and shifts when you can just *write it down*?
>
> The idea was to replace the 'ABCD' multi-byte constant. If you think
> that writing down the corresponding integer is cleaner, so be it - I
> don't care either way. I am not sure I see a difference between 'A' <<
> 24 .... and 103...., though.
>
>
> > True, it is initialized here:
> >
> >         movl    $16909060, -8(%ebp)
> >
>
> The generated assembly is exactly the same wether the constant is
> initialized through the macro or the integer (the actual integer is in
> the assembly). But in the following case:
>
> const union {
> npy_uint32 i;
>    char c[4];
> } bint = {some constant};
>
> switch (bint.c[0]) {
>   case 'A':
>  etc....
> }
>
> The compiler did not remove the conditionals corresponding to the
> switch - const or not.
>

I got curious to see just how it would all go together. Here is the C:

#include <stdio.h>

enum {little_endian, big_endian, unknown};

static int order(void)
{
    const union {
        int i;
        char c[sizeof(int)];
    } test = {0x01020304};

    if (test.c[0] == 1) {
        return big_endian;
    }
    else if (test.c[0] == 4) {
        return little_endian;
    }
    else {
        return unknown;
    }
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    printf("%d\n", order());
    return 0;
}


And here is the gcc -S -O2 compiled assembly:

    .file    "order.c"
    .section    .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
    .string    "%d\n"
    .text
    .p2align 4,,15
.globl main
    .type    main, @function
main:
    leal    4(%esp), %ecx
    andl    $-16, %esp
    pushl    -4(%ecx)
    pushl    %ebp
    movl    %esp, %ebp
    pushl    %ecx
    subl    $20, %esp
    movl    $0, 4(%esp)  <<<<<<<<<
    movl    $.LC0, (%esp)
    call    printf
    addl    $20, %esp
    xorl    %eax, %eax
    popl    %ecx
    popl    %ebp
    leal    -4(%ecx), %esp
    ret
    .size    main, .-main
    .ident    "GCC: (GNU) 4.3.0 20080428 (Red Hat 4.3.0-8)"
    .section    .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits


The order function has been inlined and the return value, 0, is loaded for
printing at the marked line. That line is the only place where anything
remains of the order function. The compiler knows the return value and puts
it on the stack for the printf call, nothing is computed at run time.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20090307/e7bd4783/attachment-0001.html