Lines Matching refs:compiler

27 	compiler from deducing the resulting pointer value.  Please see
29 	for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact
39 	The compiler simply knows too much about integral values to
57 	"(x-(uintptr_t)x)" for char* pointers.	The compiler is within its
96 	explained, if the two pointers are equal, the compiler could
104 	Because the compiler now knows that the value of "p" is exactly
119 		compiler knows that the pointer is NULL, you had better
121 		non-equal, the compiler is none the wiser.  Therefore,
126 		Since there are no subsequent dereferences, the compiler
184 	-	The pointers are not equal *and* the compiler does
187 		will normally prevent the compiler from knowing too much.
189 		However, please note that if the compiler knows that the
192 		compiler needs to deduce the value of the pointer.
194 -	Disable any value-speculation optimizations that your compiler
202 	ordered systems (such as ARM or Power).  Choose your compiler
251 			/* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */
264 to some reordering from the compiler and CPUs is beside the point.
313 			/* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */
332 other pointer, the compiler normally has no clue what the value of the
333 first pointer might be.  This lack of knowledge prevents the compiler
336 should prevent the compiler from guessing the value.
338 But without rcu_dereference(), the compiler knows more than you might
371 Because the compiler can see all stores to "gp", it knows that the only
373 on the other.  The comparison in reader() therefore tells the compiler
375 compiler to make the return values independent of the load from "gp",
445 pointers, which can result in "interesting" bugs due to compiler
453 If register pressure is high, the compiler might optimize "p" out