Hi,
Bernd Paysan wrote:
> The code to be moved is all in one function. Linkers don't rearrange code
> within functions, compilers do that (and that's what GCC 3.3 apparently
> does).
Umm, OK, that was misremembered on my part.
I still think, though, that a code start-end table would work, e.g.
big_block_function():
[...]
start_3117:
[ code to be copied ]
end_3117:
asm("");
start_3118: [...]
The empty asm statements should prevent GCC from moving code around at the end
of the blocks -- otherwise it might let all end_* labels point to the end of
the function.
That should be much more portable than assuming that start_3118 directly
follows start_3117.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zuf�llig ausgew�hlt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Zwei Kerzen: "Was machst Du heute abend?"
"Ich glaube ich gehe aus."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
