From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14976 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2008 12:18:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 14968 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2008 12:18:06 -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 12:17:48 +0000 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:17:45 +0000 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Hans-Peter Nilsson'" Cc: , References: <031401c856a0$51962690$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>(dave.korn@artimi.com) <200801141143.m0EBh2SU019554@ignucius.se.axis.com> Subject: RE: How to stop gcc from not calling noinline functions Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <031d01c856a7$7859d720$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: <200801141143.m0EBh2SU019554@ignucius.se.axis.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00205.txt.bz2 On 14 January 2008 11:43, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> From: "Dave Korn" >> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:26:33 -0000 > >> 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.) > > No. No tricks in the calling function. To reiterate my main > use: test-cases. Changing from a direct function call in the > original code to indirect is too much a difference, not to say a > (pointer to) volatile. Oops, yes it is, I just re-read your original post; it's the caller, and the call itself you care about, not what's in the (inlined-or-not) callee. Apologies. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....