Re: Short-circuiting in C

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Short-circuiting in C
Date	2011-05-28 09:44 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<irqu8p$8gg$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<irm4et$66d$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/26/2011 01:58 PM, Billy Mays wrote:
> Hey CLC,
> 
> 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 */
> }
> 
> I am currently doing GPU programming and it would be better to evaluate 
> the entire condition, even if a is 0, since branches are slow.

I assume that, if you're willing to have the entire condition evaluated,
then neither b nor c represent expressions with side-effects. In
particular, neither of them is or involves the value of an object
defined with volatile.

Then there's two basic cases that need to be distinguished:
1. The compiler can figure out that neither b nor c are expressions with
side effects.
If this is the case, then any sufficiently good compiler targeting your
platform should generate code that evaluates both b and c, and then
discarding their values if not needed; at least, it should do so
whenever it makes sense to do so. This is allowed by the C standard,
even though it says explicitly that they should only be evaluated if
needed. That's because of the fact that they have no side-effects. As a
result, there's no way for a strictly conforming program to determine
whether or not the compiler is doing this, so the as-if rule allows the
compiler to do this.
If your compiler isn't smart enough to perform this optimization
automatically, there's no way in C to tell it explicitly to perform it.

2. The compiler cannot figure out that neither b nor c have side-effects.
About the only way this could be true is if one or both of those
expressions involve a function call. If all three expressions have
integral type, try:

        if(a & b & c)
	{
	}

The use of '&' rather than '&&' removes the short-circuiting behavior,
but the net result is the same, as long as integer types are involved.
If any of the expressions has a floating point or pointer type, you'll
have to insert !=0, and that will probably be converted into a branch,
which is precisely what you're trying to avoid.

-- 
James Kuyper

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