On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Alexander Sack wrote: > > For my own edification, unless you specifically mark a function > > inline, will gcc really optimize them out? That seems a little > > overboard unless there is some compiler option that says its okay to > > do that. I guess that would be very easy to test if you do as you > > say, just sock away the function address pointer somewhere and you > > should be okay... > > > > This is a regression in gcc-4. The -O option says it. -O implies > -funit-at-a-time, which allows inlining of functions irrespective of > their order within a file and implies -finline-functions-called-once. > Thus even plain -O removes most static functions that are only called > once.
Thanks Bruce, I did some digging and all i can say is YIKES. Got to be careful with gcc optimizations. I suppose to be safe, bge could be compiled with -fno-inline-funcations-called-once to be safe. > This doesn't seem to be the problem with the bce functions, since some > of the missing ones are called more than once. Again, I would assume if you look at the symbols of the generated binary you should be able to figure out if you have a compiler issue or a debugger one! -aps _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
