Compiler Baremetal (arm-none-eabi) - Compiler Implementation Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why can templates only be implemented in the header file?Improve INSERT-per-second performance of SQLite?Can code that is valid in both C and C++ produce different behavior when compiled in each language?Cross-compile a library for arm-none-eabi-gccHow to affect Delphi XEx code generation for Android/ARM targets?Compiling Programs with arm-none-eabilinking succeeds with arm-none-eabi-g++ but not arm-none-eabi-gccCompiling an application for use in highly radioactive environmentsAre there valid reasons to declare variables static inside the main() function of a C program?Clang cross-compilation with arm-none-eabi

Marquee sign letters

Meaning of 境 in その日を境に

Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?

Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?

Twin's vs. Twins'

NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE

Improvising over quartal voicings

Did pre-Columbian Americans know the spherical shape of the Earth?

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

Besides transaction validation, are there any other uses of the Script language in Bitcoin

What is the proper term for etching or digging of wall to hide conduit of cables

Short story about astronauts fertilizing soil with their own bodies

Russian equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

Do i imagine the linear (straight line) homotopy in a correct way?

Determine whether an integer is a palindrome

How to infer difference of population proportion between two groups when proportion is small?

Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options

Found this skink in my tomato plant bucket. Is he trapped? Or could he leave if he wanted?

Pointing to problems without suggesting solutions

Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?

Are there any irrational/transcendental numbers for which the distribution of decimal digits is not uniform?

How can I list files in reverse time order by a command and pass them as arguments to another command?

How to resize main filesystem

Why is there so little support for joining EFTA in the British parliament?



Compiler Baremetal (arm-none-eabi) - Compiler Implementation



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why can templates only be implemented in the header file?Improve INSERT-per-second performance of SQLite?Can code that is valid in both C and C++ produce different behavior when compiled in each language?Cross-compile a library for arm-none-eabi-gccHow to affect Delphi XEx code generation for Android/ARM targets?Compiling Programs with arm-none-eabilinking succeeds with arm-none-eabi-g++ but not arm-none-eabi-gccCompiling an application for use in highly radioactive environmentsAre there valid reasons to declare variables static inside the main() function of a C program?Clang cross-compilation with arm-none-eabi



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








-2















It is common practice to declare stack variables (variables allocated on the excecuting stack rather than dynamically or statically) at the entrypoint of the function rather than mixed with instructions inside the function.
See Example 1.a and 1.b.
This helps with a better readability and was with older language even required.



With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice).



My Question though:
How does the compiler solve it if stack variables are inside a function rather than at the entry point.
See Examples 2.a and 2.b how i can imagine he solves it.
What is ACTUALLY HAPPENING?




1.a) Example (Common Practice / Best Practice)




void main()

int a = 3; // best practice
bool c = false; // best practice

a += 16;

if(a == 5)

c=false;




...rather than ...




1.b) Example (Uncommon)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // variable after some instructions executed..
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.a) Possible compiler solution (A)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // COMPILER CUTS THIS LINE AND MOVES IT UP UNDER "int a = 3;"
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.B) Possible compiler solution (B)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

// COMPILER ADDS SUBSECTION IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE NEW VARIABLES ON STACK
bool c = false;
if(a == 5)

c=false;












share|improve this question

















  • 6





    "Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:03











  • As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:04







  • 1





    It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

    – old_timer
    Mar 22 at 13:14











  • Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:18







  • 1





    You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 13:50

















-2















It is common practice to declare stack variables (variables allocated on the excecuting stack rather than dynamically or statically) at the entrypoint of the function rather than mixed with instructions inside the function.
See Example 1.a and 1.b.
This helps with a better readability and was with older language even required.



With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice).



My Question though:
How does the compiler solve it if stack variables are inside a function rather than at the entry point.
See Examples 2.a and 2.b how i can imagine he solves it.
What is ACTUALLY HAPPENING?




1.a) Example (Common Practice / Best Practice)




void main()

int a = 3; // best practice
bool c = false; // best practice

a += 16;

if(a == 5)

c=false;




...rather than ...




1.b) Example (Uncommon)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // variable after some instructions executed..
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.a) Possible compiler solution (A)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // COMPILER CUTS THIS LINE AND MOVES IT UP UNDER "int a = 3;"
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.B) Possible compiler solution (B)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

// COMPILER ADDS SUBSECTION IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE NEW VARIABLES ON STACK
bool c = false;
if(a == 5)

c=false;












share|improve this question

















  • 6





    "Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:03











  • As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:04







  • 1





    It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

    – old_timer
    Mar 22 at 13:14











  • Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:18







  • 1





    You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 13:50













-2












-2








-2








It is common practice to declare stack variables (variables allocated on the excecuting stack rather than dynamically or statically) at the entrypoint of the function rather than mixed with instructions inside the function.
See Example 1.a and 1.b.
This helps with a better readability and was with older language even required.



With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice).



My Question though:
How does the compiler solve it if stack variables are inside a function rather than at the entry point.
See Examples 2.a and 2.b how i can imagine he solves it.
What is ACTUALLY HAPPENING?




1.a) Example (Common Practice / Best Practice)




void main()

int a = 3; // best practice
bool c = false; // best practice

a += 16;

if(a == 5)

c=false;




...rather than ...




1.b) Example (Uncommon)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // variable after some instructions executed..
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.a) Possible compiler solution (A)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // COMPILER CUTS THIS LINE AND MOVES IT UP UNDER "int a = 3;"
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.B) Possible compiler solution (B)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

// COMPILER ADDS SUBSECTION IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE NEW VARIABLES ON STACK
bool c = false;
if(a == 5)

c=false;












share|improve this question














It is common practice to declare stack variables (variables allocated on the excecuting stack rather than dynamically or statically) at the entrypoint of the function rather than mixed with instructions inside the function.
See Example 1.a and 1.b.
This helps with a better readability and was with older language even required.



With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice).



My Question though:
How does the compiler solve it if stack variables are inside a function rather than at the entry point.
See Examples 2.a and 2.b how i can imagine he solves it.
What is ACTUALLY HAPPENING?




1.a) Example (Common Practice / Best Practice)




void main()

int a = 3; // best practice
bool c = false; // best practice

a += 16;

if(a == 5)

c=false;




...rather than ...




1.b) Example (Uncommon)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // variable after some instructions executed..
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.a) Possible compiler solution (A)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

bool c = false; // COMPILER CUTS THIS LINE AND MOVES IT UP UNDER "int a = 3;"
if(a == 5)

c=false;





2.B) Possible compiler solution (B)




void main()

int a = 3;
a += 16;

// COMPILER ADDS SUBSECTION IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE NEW VARIABLES ON STACK
bool c = false;
if(a == 5)

c=false;









c++ c arm embedded cross-compiling






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 22 at 13:00









aphardtaphardt

245




245







  • 6





    "Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:03











  • As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:04







  • 1





    It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

    – old_timer
    Mar 22 at 13:14











  • Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:18







  • 1





    You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 13:50












  • 6





    "Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:03











  • As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:04







  • 1





    It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

    – old_timer
    Mar 22 at 13:14











  • Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

    – Some programmer dude
    Mar 22 at 13:18







  • 1





    You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 13:50







6




6





"Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:03





"Common/best practice" is very subjective. And many people recommend defining variables as close to their use as possible (helps grouping code, and you don't have to jump much to find a variables definition when reading the code).

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:03













As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:04






As for how it's solved, one way is to simply reserve space at function entry for all variables, no matter their scope or grouping within the function. If you really want to know (for you specific compiler and target system), look at the generated machine code.

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:04





1




1





It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

– old_timer
Mar 22 at 13:14





It is not difficult for a compiler to keep track, some variable might be at sp-8 for a while then push an item now that variable is at sp-12 for a while pop something off the variable is now at sp-8 again. control the execution paths through the function which compilers also already do. in the grand scheme of things this is not in any way a difficult task for compilers they have other more complicated tasks to worry about.

– old_timer
Mar 22 at 13:14













Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:18






Also note that while automatic (local non-static) variables are usually stored on the stack (even through it's not something specified in the C specification), a good compiler doesn't really use push or pop instructions to handle them. Instead it just reserves a chunk of the stack for its variables, and then uses offsets from the stack-pointer to access the variables.

– Some programmer dude
Mar 22 at 13:18





1




1





You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

– Clifford
Mar 22 at 13:50





You would do well also to remove the contentious and inaccurate pre-amble to your question and just ask the question. "With modern C/C++ it is no longer required (..but still good practice)." - no, it was never good practice - exactly the opposite - minimal scope is always preferable. Moreover it is not a "modern C/C++" thing either, it was never necessary in C++, and for C you could always declare variables at the start of any ... delimited block, not just function blocks.

– Clifford
Mar 22 at 13:50












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














When, how and where the compiler instantiates or allocates such variables is entirely implementation dependent. It may create a stack frame for all variables at the start of the function, or it may extend the stack frame at the point of declaration, or it may not use the stack at all and use register storage instead.



The language only requires that the correct semantics are implemented; that the variable is not in scope (i.e. cannot be referenced by code) before it is declared, and that the scope ends after the closing } of the block in which it was declared.






share|improve this answer























  • Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

    – aphardt
    Mar 22 at 14:23











  • @aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 18:57











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55300188%2fcompiler-baremetal-arm-none-eabi-compiler-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














When, how and where the compiler instantiates or allocates such variables is entirely implementation dependent. It may create a stack frame for all variables at the start of the function, or it may extend the stack frame at the point of declaration, or it may not use the stack at all and use register storage instead.



The language only requires that the correct semantics are implemented; that the variable is not in scope (i.e. cannot be referenced by code) before it is declared, and that the scope ends after the closing } of the block in which it was declared.






share|improve this answer























  • Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

    – aphardt
    Mar 22 at 14:23











  • @aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 18:57















2














When, how and where the compiler instantiates or allocates such variables is entirely implementation dependent. It may create a stack frame for all variables at the start of the function, or it may extend the stack frame at the point of declaration, or it may not use the stack at all and use register storage instead.



The language only requires that the correct semantics are implemented; that the variable is not in scope (i.e. cannot be referenced by code) before it is declared, and that the scope ends after the closing } of the block in which it was declared.






share|improve this answer























  • Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

    – aphardt
    Mar 22 at 14:23











  • @aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 18:57













2












2








2







When, how and where the compiler instantiates or allocates such variables is entirely implementation dependent. It may create a stack frame for all variables at the start of the function, or it may extend the stack frame at the point of declaration, or it may not use the stack at all and use register storage instead.



The language only requires that the correct semantics are implemented; that the variable is not in scope (i.e. cannot be referenced by code) before it is declared, and that the scope ends after the closing } of the block in which it was declared.






share|improve this answer













When, how and where the compiler instantiates or allocates such variables is entirely implementation dependent. It may create a stack frame for all variables at the start of the function, or it may extend the stack frame at the point of declaration, or it may not use the stack at all and use register storage instead.



The language only requires that the correct semantics are implemented; that the variable is not in scope (i.e. cannot be referenced by code) before it is declared, and that the scope ends after the closing } of the block in which it was declared.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 22 at 13:58









CliffordClifford

61.1k860128




61.1k860128












  • Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

    – aphardt
    Mar 22 at 14:23











  • @aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 18:57

















  • Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

    – aphardt
    Mar 22 at 14:23











  • @aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

    – Clifford
    Mar 22 at 18:57
















Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

– aphardt
Mar 22 at 14:23





Ok. My question is more targeting user-controlled optimization (!= compiler optimization), so what i can and should do to write fast and low-foodprint code.

– aphardt
Mar 22 at 14:23













@aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

– Clifford
Mar 22 at 18:57





@aphardt : If it were to have any optimisation at all, which is doubtful, it would be the kind of micro-optimisation that is best left to the compiler - as a developer you should concentrate on efficient algorithms, code structure and appropriate data structure selection - you will achieve far more doing those things the compiler cannot do that trying to second-guess it.

– Clifford
Mar 22 at 18:57



















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55300188%2fcompiler-baremetal-arm-none-eabi-compiler-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Kamusi Yaliyomo Aina za kamusi | Muundo wa kamusi | Faida za kamusi | Dhima ya picha katika kamusi | Marejeo | Tazama pia | Viungo vya nje | UrambazajiKuhusu kamusiGo-SwahiliWiki-KamusiKamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingerezakuihariri na kuongeza habari

SQL error code 1064 with creating Laravel foreign keysForeign key constraints: When to use ON UPDATE and ON DELETEDropping column with foreign key Laravel error: General error: 1025 Error on renameLaravel SQL Can't create tableLaravel Migration foreign key errorLaravel php artisan migrate:refresh giving a syntax errorSQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists or Base table or view already exists: 1050 Tableerror in migrating laravel file to xampp serverSyntax error or access violation: 1064:syntax to use near 'unsigned not null, modelName varchar(191) not null, title varchar(191) not nLaravel cannot create new table field in mysqlLaravel 5.7:Last migration creates table but is not registered in the migration table

은진 송씨 목차 역사 본관 분파 인물 조선 왕실과의 인척 관계 집성촌 항렬자 인구 같이 보기 각주 둘러보기 메뉴은진 송씨세종실록 149권, 지리지 충청도 공주목 은진현