On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:50:42PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:38 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
> > I just tested some code with -O0 and the functioncall still gets
> > optimized away. This is with gcc 4.1 and gcc 4.3. gcc 2.95 does not.
> If it's just a perform
Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:38 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
> I just tested some code with -O0 and the functioncall still gets
> optimized away. This is with gcc 4.1 and gcc 4.3. gcc 2.95 does not.
If it's just a performance pessimisation with -O0, I don't care. If I
get compiler or linker er
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:27:06PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:12 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
> > This approach will not work with -O0, which might be a problem.
> If I were to decide, that would kill the patch. I really like to
> recompile the dlls I am curre
Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:12 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
> This approach will not work with -O0, which might be a problem.
If I were to decide, that would kill the patch. I really like to
recompile the dlls I am currently debugging with -O0, as that makes
following the code flow much easie