[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?
From: |
Chris Elmquist |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug? |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:13:49 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Monday (12/17/2001 at 05:00PM -0500), address@hidden wrote:
>
> As I am "lurking" and do not (yet) have avr-gcc installed, please forgive
> me for asking:
>
> 1: are there compiler directives available similar to #OPTIMIZE and
> #NOOPTIMIZE which would selectively enable and disable optimization around
> defined source code segments (ref: Intel PL/M 80 circa 1980-1989)?
I'm still researching this one. Normally, one would expect some kind
of #pragma to control this but I don't see any GCC pragmas that relate
to optimization.
Here's the best GCC online reference that I know:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/
> 2: is there a compiler directive available like #INLINE which would let one
> code a "function" but would compiler as in-line code eliminating the
> overhead of the function call and return?
I think you're looking for the __inline__ directive. I've used this with
other processors but not yet with the AVR. YMMV :-)
> 3: is there a version of avr-gcc available for WinNT (or any Win32 OS)?
Yup:
http://combio.de/avr/index.html
cje
--
Chris Elmquist mailto:address@hidden http://www.pobox.com/~chrise
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?, (continued)
[avr-gcc-list] 4-bit LCD source, Mike Jones, 2001/12/17
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?, Dmitry, 2001/12/18
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?, Carsten Beth, 2001/12/18
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?, john . johnson, 2001/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?,
Chris Elmquist <=
Re: [avr-gcc-list] GCC 3.0.2 unsigned int bug?, Francisco T. A. Silva, 2001/12/17