This is what i get if i set i to be volatile in gcc 4.3.1 with -O3: 0: 55 push %ebp 1: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp 3: 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%esp 6: c7 45 fc 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x4(%ebp) d: 8b 45 fc mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax 10: 83 f8 07 cmp $0x7,%eax 13: 7f 1e jg 33 <func+0x33> 15: 8d 76 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi 18: c7 05 00 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,0x0 1f: 00 00 00 22: 8b 45 fc mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax 25: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax 28: 89 45 fc mov %eax,-0x4(%ebp) 2b: 8b 45 fc mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax 2e: 83 f8 07 cmp $0x7,%eax 31: 7e e5 jle 18 <func+0x18> 33: c9 leave 34: c3 ret
looks like i was right! On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 15:54, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote: > Aviv Greenberg wrote: > > Just out of curiousity: why do you care about the resulting assembly? > It's a strong indication that you are doing something wrong :) > > > First, we have found several bugs in GCC as a result of "caring about the > assembly". Lets agree that it's an indication that someone is doing > something wrong. > > The reason I'm trying to disable this optimization is because it causes the > code to be too big to fit onto the available ROM on which the code needs to > be flashed. The X86 version I gave here shows the problem, but is no the > platform on which the problem was diagnosed. > > Shachar > > -- > Shachar Shemesh > Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. > http://www.lingnu.com > -- Ogden Nash - "The trouble with a kitten is that when it grows up, it's always a cat." - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/ogden_nash.html _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
