https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43404
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43404
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 19:34:31 2015
New Revision: 226528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-e
--- Comment #7 from torsten at debian dot org 2010-05-20 20:47 ---
This also hit me. I wanted to build a simple data logger for an ARM board. Of
course I wanted to give gcc 4.4 a go (I used a compiler from the 3.x series
before...), combined with current FreeRTOS (from www.freertos.org).
--- Comment #6 from marti at juffo dot org 2010-03-19 14:46 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think the compiler should throw an error if there are any statements in the
> naked function other than asm statements.
This would break a lot of code; there are use cases where you want to
save
--- Comment #5 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-19 13:27
---
I think the compiler should throw an error if there are any statements in the
naked function other than asm statements. All such asms should be treated as
volatile.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-19 12:04 ---
Yes - haven't thought about it much, maybe the backend could give an error if a
frame were allocated for a naked function rather than ICE'ing in an awkward
place.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 17:39 ---
Then it should produce an error and not an internal compiler error.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 17:37
---
Native functions aren't expected to work with a 'C' body.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
