> -----Original Message----- > From: > avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org > [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu. > org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:50 PM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: bug #22163 (atomic not > working asexpectedinC++) > > As Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > As a side note, wouldn't declaring some_temp_variable as volatile > > solve the issue above? > > I think it does, but it's another pessimization... It forces the > function to get a stack frame even if it otherwise doesn't need it, > and adds memory access cycles. The optimizer could perfectly keep the > variable in a register, it's just that the developer intended to move > the time-critical routine outside the interrupt block. >
Ah, I see your point now. Agreed. _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
