RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Wunsch [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 8:17 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Weddington, Eric
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile 
> pin access code.why?
> 
> As Weddington, Eric wrote:
> 
> > And IMHO, I highly doubt that this proposal will be approved. They
> > will probably just come back to you and say that there's no need for
> > it.
> 
> Why not?  Why do you think issuing a warning for something that is
> known it cannot work would be rejected?  If the always_inline
> attribute is known to only work for a function declared inline, it
> should be legitimate to warn the user about a situation where this
> prerequisite is not met.

Ok, *that* proposal I can understand (warning if inline not present). But I 
think that changing 'always_inline' attribute to imply inline might not fly. 
But who knows? In the end I think you're right in that it would be an effort to 
get it through the commit process.