--- Comment #10 from ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2009-07-31 15:56 ---
Filed MingW bug here:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2830386group_id=2435atid=102435
--
ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 16:02 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Filed MingW bug here:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2830386group_id=2435atid=102435
Wrong project tracker. Please go to
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=202880
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-31 16:42
---
noinline attributes would be better I think.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40909
--- Comment #13 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 16:46 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
noinline attributes would be better I think.
noinline for the inline functions??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40909
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-31 17:44
---
Yes, and of course remove the inline qualifier ;)
I have no idea what optimize(0) will do and why it should affect the bug
you are seeing (I guess it disallows inlining, which is why I think noinline
is a better
--- Comment #15 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 18:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=18279)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18279action=view)
[ __attribute__((optimize(0))) difference ]
Hmm, __attribute__((optimize(0))) does seem to disable inlining and the
--- Comment #16 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 18:16 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Created an attachment (id=18279)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18279action=view) [edit]
[ __attribute__((optimize(0))) difference ]
Hmm, __attribute__((optimize(0)))
