From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: fnf@ninemoons.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:52:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FCB7FF9.4090601@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200311292305.hATN51Uj013311@fred.ninemoons.com>
> * as places to try setting breakpoints at. They are explicitly
> * "one-line functions" to verify that this case works (some versions
> * of gcc have or have had problems with this).
> + * Recent versions of gcc have gotten smart enough that they will not
> + * call functions that have no use or visible side effect, so use
> + * globalvar to outwit the compiler for a while longer.
Fred, can you clarify exactly under what circumstances this occures?
I know that GCC will now, when -O is specified, inline (and thence
eliminate) pure functions. However, I don't think that should occure
when -O isn't specified.
As for stopping GCC from eliminating code - last time this came up (ref
store.exp) it was recommended that the .c files be split so that GCC
couldn't see the potential optimization.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-01 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-29 23:05 Fred Fish
2003-11-30 1:04 ` Fred Fish
2003-11-30 1:07 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-30 1:26 ` Fred Fish
2003-12-01 0:46 ` Fred Fish
2003-12-01 14:58 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-12-01 15:30 ` Fred Fish
2003-12-01 15:46 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-12-01 16:39 ` Fred Fish
2003-12-01 14:23 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-12-01 14:44 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-01 17:52 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-12-01 18:10 ` Fred Fish
2003-12-09 1:02 ` Michael Snyder
2003-12-07 21:21 ` [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test (revised patch) Fred Fish
2003-12-08 0:31 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-01 16:55 [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-12-08 23:49 [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test (revised patch) Andrew Cagney
2003-12-09 5:06 ` [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test Fred Fish
2003-12-09 6:52 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-12-29 20:20 ` Elena Zannoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3FCB7FF9.4090601@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=fnf@ninemoons.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox