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 8:57 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Weddington, Eric
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile 
> pin access code.why?
> 
> 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.

Agreed.
 
> > 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. ;-)

LOL! Don't look at me! I've got enough on my plate. ;-) Perhaps some users will 
get motivated enough to become developers....