Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS

Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org>
8 Dec 2003 00:24:32 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Pushes, Pops, NOPS vbjohny@yahoo.com (2003-12-03)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS Barak.Zalstein@ParthusCeva.com (Barak Zalstein) (2003-12-08)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS tmk@netvision.net.il (2003-12-08)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS nick.roberts@acm.org (Nick Roberts) (2003-12-08)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS kenrose@tfb.com (Ken Rose) (2003-12-08)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS vbdis@aol.com (2003-12-08)
Re: Pushes, Pops, NOPS lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-12-13)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Dec 2003 00:24:32 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 03-12-032
Keywords: code, optimize
Posted-Date: 08 Dec 2003 00:24:32 EST

Kalyan wrote:


> ...
> If I added some "NOPS" in between each of the instructions above just
> to make the code look bigger, is there any option while compiling with
> GCC which would eliminate all those unnecessary "NOPS" and then
> convert the remaining code to binary?


If there were such an option, it could introduce some really gnarly bugs
into certain programs. Supposing one of the 'unnecessary' NOPs was in
between an STI and a CLI? Hehe.


--
Nick Roberts

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.