| Andy Neil 06/22/09 01:36 Read: 259 times Basingstoke Uk |
#166328 - Don't blame the optimiser! Responding to: Jez Smith'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 | Girish Nikam | 06/21/09 13:29 |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36? | Frieder Ferlemann | 06/21/09 13:59 |
| that's it | Jan Waclawek | 06/21/09 15:03 |
| ah ha | Jez Smith | 06/21/09 15:08 |
| Don't blame the optimiser! | Andy Neil | 06/22/09 01:36 |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36 | Girish Nikam | 06/21/09 22:13 |
| hmmm | Jez Smith | 06/22/09 00:42 |
modified dog | Andy Peters | 06/23/09 14:21 |
| I cannot remember now | Jez Smith | 06/21/09 14:33 |
| xmt_flag., why "int"? | Mahesh Joshi | 06/22/09 01:53 |
| if you want to use it as "int" / "char" | Andy Neil | 06/22/09 02:47 |
| You destroy succeding putchar()'s | David Prentice | 06/22/09 05:14 |
| "Volatile" Helps | Girish Nikam | 06/22/09 07:42 |
| "bit" is more useful | Mahesh Joshi | 06/22/09 08:16 |
| buzzzzz | Erik Malund | 06/22/09 08:37 |
| family | Jan Waclawek | 06/22/09 13:44 |
| stdbool | Oliver Sedlacek | 06/23/09 06:44 |