> Hi listmembers,
>
> sorry to bother you again :-).
>
> With -O0 (no optimisation) static inline does not work?
> Is this true?
>
Don't use "-O0" - it makes debugging harder. When you specify no
optomisation, there is a great deal of extra code, which makes it very hard
to follow the generated assembly code. I use -O2 -g for debugging, and very
occasionally -O1 -g for special problems.
You might, however, be able to get inlined functions by specifying the
"-finline" flag even with -O0.
> example:
>
> #define OS_TIMERINT() ({ (* do something *) })
>
> static inline void osTimerInt(void)
> {
> //do something
> }
>
> // Timer A0 interrupt service routine
> interrupt(TIMERA0_VECTOR) Timer_A0(void)
> {
> CCR0 += 200; // Add Offset to CCR0
> osTimerInt();
> OS_TIMERINT();
> }
>
> osTimerInt() is called like a ordinary function (call 0xxxx)
> however the macro works; I will use macros and not static inline,
> so no problem ;-)
> (I use -O0 for debugging, but I think static inline should work as
expected
> independent from optimisation mode?).
>
> I have the latest gcc binary from the download area (no cvs version).
>
> Matthias
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
> Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
> Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
>
>
>
