--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-13
11:53 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-11
23:11 ---
Try -fno-optimize-sibling-calls.
sibling-call (tail-call) optimizations can confuse anything that tries to
produce call graph info, and the end result will look similar to the result you
get with function in
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02
06:44 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This const/pure is definitely not my case.
How sure are you?
And are you sure that the options are being used to compile all the code.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-02-02 02:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Also note sometimes when a function is pure/const it can be removed which is
why it might act as
> inlining.
>
> Do you have a simple example?
> ...
> Also note sometimes when a function i
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02
02:00 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Also note sometimes when a function is pure/const it can be removed which is
> why it might act as
> inlining.
This is an example where we remove the function call so it looks li
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02
01:57 ---
Also note sometimes when a function is pure/const it can be removed which is
why it might act as
inlining.
Do you have a simple example?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19748
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02
01:56 ---
-O3 enables -finline-functions, you want -fno-functions-inlines but -fno-inline
should not enable
inlining period (except for alwaysinline functions).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197
