Robert Dewar wrote: > James Dennett wrote: > >> I don't know how much work it would be to disable this optimization in >> gcc. > > To me, it is always troublesome to talk of "disable this optimization" > in a context like this.
In general I agree; on the other hand, for this particular optimization I'm a bit more sympathetic because the optimization is clearly bogus for MMU-less targets, and in fact AVR disables it completely in its option processing code. In other words, making NULL pointer dereferences implementation-defined would not be enough, but making them undefined tout-court seems a bit too strong. Note that applying the optimization in the case of the OP's code, in my opinion, is correct. That's what I meant by my answer to James Dennett: Zoltan thought he could afford being sloppy, or clever, or both, but he knew perfectly that he couldn't have done so on another target. Paolo
