| ??? 06/22/09 06:36 Read: times |
#166328 - Don't blame the optimiser! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jez Smith said:
Sneaky optimisers, if they don't think your code is doing anything useful they will break it. If the code does not survive the optimiser, then the code is broken - it is not the optimiser's fault. This is precisely the point of all those warnings from Lint! http://www.8052.com/forum/read/165768 |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| UART code porting to SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that's it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ah ha | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't blame the optimiser! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hmmm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
modified dog | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I cannot remember now | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| xmt_flag., why "int"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you want to use it as "int" / "char" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You destroy succeding putchar()'s | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Volatile" Helps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "bit" is more useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| buzzzzz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| family | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| stdbool | 01/01/70 00:00 |