> On 14 January 2008 11:03, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> >> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:16:23 +0100
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>> (Yeah, new attributes "impure" and/or "nonconst" would solve
> >>> this, but only for IPA and there's already the existing option
> >>> and asm I mentioned. And if you say different files/compilation
> >>> units, I say LTO.)
> >>
> >> I think the asm is your best bet.
> >
> > I prefer not to bet at all. ;)
> >
> > Let's make this:
> > asm ("");
> > (asms without input and output operands are volatile, and we're
> > also leaving the text empty) in the called function the
> > promised, documented way to stop interfunction analysis (like
> > currently const/pure) making calls "as it used to be". Not all
> > targets support "weak", and overloading a standard qualifier
> > like "volatile" or "extern" seems on second thought too brittle.
> >
> > brgds, H-P
>
> If you wanted to stick to standard C, you could surely force it with a call
> through function pointer, perhaps? (You might need to make it volatile to
> fool IPA.)
My preferred variant would be probably simple increment of global
variable...
Honza
>
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
