Thanks, I had indeed misunderstood Ken's point.
However, if I change the code thus:
---
void func(void)
{
volatile int timeout;
return;
timeout = 0x;
while (timeout--);
}
---
the only difference is that the warning is pr
Mary-Ann,
I think you missed the point Ken Jackson was trying to
make. Even if you do NOT insert the return-statement the
code can still be optimized out by the compiler because
it has no so-called side-effects. Only if you make the
timeout variable 'volatile' you disallow the compiler to
mak
Yes, I want the compiler to optimise it away, but I'd like it to do so
without complaining about the "timeout" variable. The following code
has similar problems:
void func(void)
{
return;
{
int timeout;
timeout = 0x;
while (timeout--);
}
}
Mary-Ann
Ken Jackson wrote:
> I
I don't know the answer, though I offer an observation.
Most compilers will optimize away the delay that you are trying to
implement. Therefore you should declare timeout this way:
volatile int timeout;
Also, when I do it that way, I don't get the warning.
-Ken Jackson
Mary-Ann Johnson writ
If I compile the following code (SDCC 2.7.0):
void func(void)
{
int timeout;
return;
timeout = 0x;
while (timeout--);
}
SDCC produces the following warnings:
"src/test.c:8: warning 84:
