This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Jan 11 23:50, Pat Pannuto wrote: > LTO can re-order top-level assembly blocks, which can cause this > macro definition to appear after its use (or not at all), causing > compilation failures. As the macro has very few uses, simply removing > it by inlining is a simple fix. Am I the only one thinking this is a compiler bug, rather than correct behaviour? The macro definition is not an assembly block as such, but rather just that: a macro definition which is supposed to be evaluated at compile (or assemble) time. To reorder it on the source level seems completely out of the scope of LTO. Am I missing something or should this be fixed in GCC? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |