Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4

[Avi Kivity]

Paul Brook wrote:
> > > We already do that. It doesn't stop gcc putting the return in the middle
> > > of the function.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >       
> > void f1();
> > void f2();
> >
> > void f(int *z, int x, int y)
> > {
> >     if (x) {
> >         *z = x;
> >         f1();
> >     } else {
> >         *z = y;
> >         f2();
> >     }
> >     asm volatile ("");
> > }
> >
> > works, with gcc -O2 -fno-reorder-blocks. removing either the asm or the
> > -f flag doesn't.  No idea if it's consistent across architectures.
> >     
>
> It doesn't work reliably though. We already do everything you mention above.
>   

Okay.  Sorry for pestering :)

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function