------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-22
14:24 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have taken the address of 'ptr' and despite that, it was not excluded from
> the candidates
> for register allocation - or the warning occurred despite of the variable
> being stack allocated.
> In either case, it's a GCC bug.
No you have not taken the address, as it will not escape or otherwise.
volatile in a local function is the
same as almost as a non register.
Another way to "fix" this would be do the following:
escape_function(&a);
and mark escape_function as no inline, but this might not work in the furture
as we might know that
escape_function does not escape that address, the way to work around that would
be make a static file
scope variable which gets assigned that pointer but even that might cause the
escapeness in the future
so the only correct way is mark the variable as volatile.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21160
