This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: return statement in a function with the naked attribute
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: reed kotler <rkotler at mips dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 21:06:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: return statement in a function with the naked attribute
- References: <5182EC4D dot 4070207 at mips dot com> <CAKOQZ8wgXQfgpu9kv74c2orXMQw-jVczARicMhXMOgQpyaBNpg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5183361A dot 90705 at mips dot com>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM, reed kotler <rkotler@mips.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 07:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, reed kotler <rkotler@mips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
>>> attribute.
>>
>> I vote yes.
>
> why would you want that? naked functions are just inline asm.
> you can generate your own return statement.
>
> I meant to end that statement with a question mark. :)
>
>>> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
>>> various
>>> gcc compilers.
>>
>> Which targets do not generate a return instruction for a naked function?
>
> I don't think that any that support naked functions emit a return
> instruction.
Well, if they all agree, then clearly that is what we should do. But
you said there was some confusion. To what were you referring?
Ian