[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why? |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:45:41 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Weddington, Eric
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 8:33 AM
> To: Joerg Wunsch; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile
> pin access code.why?
>
>
>
> > -----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.
To be a bit more specific (now that I've had a bit more caffiene): Adding a
feature (a warning) is always easier than trying to change the semantics of an
existing feature (always_inline). Changing semantics seems to incur a bit more
debate and risks earlier rejection. But I agree that it's not impossible.
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code. why?, David Brown, 2009/11/01
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code. why?, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/11/02
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Weddington, Eric, 2009/11/02
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, David Brown, 2009/11/02
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/11/02
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Weddington, Eric, 2009/11/02
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/11/02
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Weddington, Eric, 2009/11/02
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?,
Weddington, Eric <=
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/11/02
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?, Weddington, Eric, 2009/11/02