From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1176 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 23:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 775 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 23:48:48 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081229234848.774.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug inline-asm/33932] miscalculation of asm labels with -g3 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg02857.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #22 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-29 23:48 ------- Subject: Re: miscalculation of asm labels with -g3 stsp at users dot sourceforge dot net wrote: > Can this possibly be solved by emitting > a warning if the asm in global scope is > used with -ffunction-sections? I think the generalization of Steven's point is that we can't really know what section the user's assembly code should go in: text, data, or something else, and therefore we'd better depend on the user to tell us. I still think it would be an OK idea to try to reduce the chances of something bad happening -- and the inconsistency between -g levels -- by popping back from the debug section, but the fundamental point is that if the user wants full robustness they need to say what section in which to put the assembly code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33932