From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Gc0te-0001Lv-AD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:35:22 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Gc0tb-0001Iw-Sn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:35:21 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc0tb-0001Ib-J2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:35:19 -0400
Received: from [64.78.21.128] (helo=mis011-1.exch011.intermedia.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gc0tb-0001za-BB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:35:19 -0400
Message-ID: <453CD322.8090303@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:35:14 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4
References: <45391B22.1050608@palmsource.com>
	<200610231510.47140.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<453CD1A3.2060206@qumranet.com>
	<200610231531.51496.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200610231531.51496.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

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