From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CfXl1-0000vn-Ge for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:07:59 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CfXl0-0000vK-SF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:07:59 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CfXl0-0000vD-Nr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:07:58 -0500 Received: from [38.113.3.61] (helo=smtp-out.hotpop.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CfVqQ-00050r-9b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:05:26 -0500 Received: from phreaker.net (kubrick.hotpop.com [38.113.3.103]) by smtp-out.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27742BEAE69 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jbrown.mylinuxbox.org (pcp03144805pcs.midval01.tn.comcast.net [68.59.228.236]) by smtp-1.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203531A036F for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:04:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:04:28 -0500 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] get_func() hangs with gcc 3.4.2 on MinGW and WinXP host Message-ID: <20041218040428.GA31934@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <20041215134754.GA28410@100tka.net> <20041215145903.GA29957@100tka.net> <20041215234503.GA12778@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <20041217195627.A38776@saturn.kn-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:09:26AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > it would be better to fix > the compilation of op.c, so that you really can chain the op_* functions. > What I mean: if you work on it, you could as well do it such that you gain > the most (performance) of it. > > Ciao, > Dscho > >>From what I understand, this is outright impossible with later versions of gcc. In order to do what you want, you would have to write the code purely in assembler. -- Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty. Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.