From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-143487-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19290 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2008 11:26:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 19282 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2008 11:26:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:37 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:33 +0000
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Hans-Peter Nilsson'" <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>, 	<bonzini@gnu.org>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <47889377.7020605@gnu.org> (message from Paolo Bonzini on Sat, 12 	Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100) <200801141103.m0EB3AGF018446@ignucius.se.axis.com>
Subject: RE: How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <031401c856a0$51962690$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <200801141103.m0EB3AGF018446@ignucius.se.axis.com>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2

On 14 January 2008 11:03, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

>> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100
>> From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
> 
>>> (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve
>>> this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option
>>> and asm I mentioned.  And if you say different files/compilation
>>> units, I say LTO.)
>> 
>> I think the asm is your best bet.
> 
> I prefer not to bet at all. ;)
> 
> Let's make this:
>  asm ("");
> (asms without input and output operands are volatile, and we're
> also leaving the text empty) in the called function the
> promised, documented way to stop interfunction analysis (like
> currently const/pure) making calls "as it used to be".  Not all
> targets support "weak", and overloading a standard qualifier
> like "volatile" or "extern" seems on second thought too brittle.
> 
> brgds, H-P

  If you wanted to stick to standard C, you could surely force it with a call
through function pointer, perhaps?  (You might need to make it volatile to
fool IPA.)


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....