https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #8 from Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #2 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 29267
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29267
asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
I am trying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:11:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 29267 [details]
asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
You need the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #4 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:16:10 UTC ---
You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
Doesn't this look like working around some bugs in gcc? User doesn't need to
know how
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:22:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
Doesn't this look like working around some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #6 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:24:43 UTC ---
I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:28:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
No because this is not about inlining. This is
