Hi! On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:49:08AM -0600, Dave Dribin wrote: > I tried using inline assembler, and it still got optimized out: This is why I didn't write "inline assembler". You may want to use a separate assembler module. > > 2. Disable optimizations for the function that contains the statement. > > Hrm... that's not ideal. It generates extraneous code with ldx #$00: This is why I wrote that neither of the workarounds is really great. > Any other ideas? As a future work around, perhaps we could be able to > disable optimizations on a block level: At least with the current structure, this is not possible, otherwise I would have added this already. The optimizer traces uses of registers, loads and stores. And if these information is lost, because parts of a function isn't optimized, it is not possible to use optimization for the remainder. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Dec 6 17:41:59 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-12-06 17:42:03 CET