This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/34563] noinline function call being removed
- From: "jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 18 Jan 2008 22:20:23 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34563] noinline function call being removed
- References: <bug-34563-507@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #12 from jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com 2008-01-18 22:20 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > > Since this topic came up, I've seen various suggestions for how to guarantee
> > that a function gets inlined -- e.g., make it a varargs function, or include an
> > empty asm statement.
>
> I assume you're referring to the thread at
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-01/msg00165.html>? If it's elsewhere, I
> wouldn't count on it.
The varargs idea came from the Linux Kernel Mailing List thread I noted in
Comment #7. The asm idea came from the gcc thread you started -- thanks.
Plainly, once gcc folks settle on the One Correct Incantation, we'll use that.
(And we can throw out all the other inline-thwarting kludges if that
incantation happens to work for older gcc versions as well... but that's not
your problem.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34563