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

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Weddington, Eric wrote:

> 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).

That's why I also liked the idea of just adding a warning.

The only remaining potential for a debate would be whether this
warning should always be enabled (I think so, because it's a usage
error, according to the description of the always_inline attribute),
or made optional.  In the latter, another -Wxxx option would be
needed, and I guess it takes also some energy to convince everybody to
at least include it into -Wall then.

> Changing
> semantics seems to incur a bit more debate and risks earlier
> rejection. But I agree that it's not impossible.

I don't know whether I'm motivated for that though. ;-)

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)