Re: Short-circuiting in C

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Short-circuiting in C
Date	2011-05-26 12:55 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<ln62oxw829.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References	<irm4et$66d$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87lixttjt7.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> <irm5op$43$1@news.belwue.de> <irm7h1$ea0$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> writes:
> On 05/26/2011 02:22 PM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>> On 26.05.2011 20:09, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Billy Mays<noway@nohow.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I was wondering if there is a way to avoid the C short circuiting for
>>>> boolean expressions such as the following:
>>>>
>>>> if(a&& b&& c) {
>>>> /* Do stuff */
>>>> }
>>>
>>> x = a;
>>> y = b;
>>> z = c;
>>> if (x&& y&& z) {
>>> /* Do stuff */
>>> }
>>
>> Sorry, I fail to see how this should work. Actually, a sufficiently
>> smart compiler would reduce this to just the above, and in fact, a
>> compiler can modify the code always on the basis of the "as-if" rule.
>>
>> So the question goes back to the OP what the intent of disabling the
>> short-circuiting is. If it is to avoid two branches, then if a,b and c
>> are always 0 or 1 (or any other number, identical for all three
>> variables), you could simply write:
>>
>> if (a & b & c) {
>> }
>>
>> If the intent is that an actual access of the variables happen, probably
>> because they are hardware registers, then you would also suggest to
>> declare them as volatile.
>>
>> However, typically the impact of such micro-optimizations is negligible.
>> Question to the OP: Did you actually measure?
>
> I did not, but I suspect using an & instead of an && would fail if a was 
> 1 and b was 2.  The programming guide I was using mentioned that the 
> short-circuiting behavior would force all the threads to serialize 
> rather than run in lockstep.

What threads?

In the code you posted, the subexpressions all appear to be simple
variable references, and short circuiting won't make any difference
unless they're volatile.  If they're stand-ins for more complex
expressions (function calls?), then it could matter what those
expressions look like.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 13:58 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-26 11:09 -0700
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-05-26 20:22 +0200
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-26 11:35 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 18:45 +0000
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-31 20:31 +0100
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 14:51 -0400
        Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 15:10 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 21:35 -0400
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 23:38 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:28 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:01 +0000
            Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:02 +0000
        Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 12:55 -0700
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 16:17 -0400
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-26 21:28 -0400
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-27 05:06 +0000
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-05-27 17:48 +0200
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-27 21:31 -0400
              Re: Short-circuiting in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 03:28 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-27 23:43 -0400
                Re: Short-circuiting in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 19:31 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-30 00:28 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 23:08 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-31 18:30 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:08 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-28 14:08 +0100
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 12:52 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:22 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-31 21:07 -0400
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-11 17:07 +0100
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 12:57 -0500
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-26 14:36 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-26 14:39 -0400
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 13:28 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Urist Sethkab <uristqwerty@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 15:34 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-27 10:08 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-27 07:56 -0700
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 20:14 -0700
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-27 20:26 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 20:44 -0700
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 00:06 +0100
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 21:34 -0400
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 07:41 +0100
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-26 21:21 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:41 -0500
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:03 -0500
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:37 -0500
  Re: Short-circuiting in C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:01 -0700
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-27 16:08 +0000
      Re: Short-circuiting in C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:46 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 13:27 -0700
  Re: Short-circuiting in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-28 09:44 -0400
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 12:15 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-28 17:07 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-05-29 07:25 +0000
  Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 18:40 +0000
    Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:48 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:05 -0400

csiph-web