Johann: I could reproduce it with one of the 4.7 packages (an older one) you provided.
--- Moreover, in 4.7 it also stores the variable to stack frame even without naked, so that could be called a missed optimisation/regression. --- As far as "code ineffiency" goes, while there is always a chance that investigating that some otherwise covered bug could be revealed, I would not put much effort in it - you are simply not supposed to use naked for C functions. --- Sligtly OT, but once you reacted: >> 4. If you desire control over code size (and other aspects of the code too), >> resort to assembler. > >There is always that. At the moment, optiboot is a "shining example" >of how the C compiler can generate output almost as small as >assembler, and "suitable for bootloaders" and such. I never use the usual (and IMHO wrong) argument that assembler produces *smaller* code. Please note my wording. Jan Waclawek _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
