From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DSKxo-00041h-2X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 16:22:52 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DSKxi-0003z2-E4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 16:22:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DSKxh-0003ws-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 16:22:45 -0400 Received: from [213.21.137.89] (helo=mail.zipman.it) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DSKvK-0003qQ-4j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 01 May 2005 16:20:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.zipman.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7E614069 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 22:15:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.zipman.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zipmanfw [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31813-06 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 22:15:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.zipman.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4482F14020 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 22:15:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <427538F4.8070502@zipman.it> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 22:15:48 +0200 From: Flavio Visentin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix dyngen failure on PPC. References: <1114859417.24014.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200505011804.43687.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200505011804.43687.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > This is not correct. > If the blr is not at the end of the function, things will break. [SNIP] > This basically only ever worked because gcc could be coerced into generating > relatively simple code. GCC4 contains much more aggressive high level > optimizers, so this is no longer possible. I don't know almost anything about gcc, so I'm asking two questions: 1) Isn't there any kind of compiler directive to force no optimization only for a portion of the code? 2) If there aren't such directives is it possible to link together optimized obj with not optimized obj? In this case you could group functions that require no optimization and link them with the other optimized code. Maybe I asked 2 dumb questions, but I'm courious and I'd like to learn something new :-) TNX P.S. I apologize for my bad English :-) - -- Flavio Visentin | \|||/ | @/0.0\@ | \ - / +------------------oOOo---oOOo------------------ There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. GPG Key: http://www.zipman.it/gpgkey.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCdTj0usUmHkh1cnoRAs3hAJ48/9uEbjEqNTsa24mKm6Ol62774ACdGpnF N+EC/lngLa6oytEfDVUO3eA= =lVHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----