RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile pin access code.why?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:57 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: optimizer removes volatile 
> pin access code.why?
> 
> In article <address@hidden> you write:
> 
> >As far as I have seen, the compiler has been working exactly as it
> >says in the manual (quoted above).
> 
> Yes, you're right.
> 
> >Alternatively, should we ask for __attribute__((always_inline)) to
> >imply inline, or give a warning if it is used for a non-inline
> >function?
> 
> I'd prefer the latter, although I guess a bug report will stay forever
> unless someone is willing to also file a patch.  Even then, it
> requires a bit of stamina to really get the patch through all the
> mailing lists, until someone finally gives his OK for the integration.
> Been there, done that (with the 0b binary constant patch).

And IMHO, I highly doubt that this proposal will be approved. They will 
probably just come back to you and say that there's no need for it.