Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Paul Brook wrote:
>>> We already do that. It doesn't stop gcc putting the return in the middle
>>> of the function.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>       
>> void f1();
>> void f2();
>>
>> void f(int *z, int x, int y)
>> {
>>     if (x) {
>>         *z = x;
>>         f1();
>>     } else {
>>         *z = y;
>>         f2();
>>     }
>>     asm volatile ("");
>> }
>>
>> works, with gcc -O2 -fno-reorder-blocks. removing either the asm or the
>> -f flag doesn't.  No idea if it's consistent across architectures.
>>     
>
> It doesn't work reliably though. We already do everything you mention above.
>   

Okay.  Sorry for pestering :)

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function