Re: [4.3] Invalid code or invalid optimisation?

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:

>>  Volatile stores only block other
>> volatile stores: they don't block *all* stores.  If you really want a complete
>> memory barrier, which in a mutex you surely do, then you're going to have to
>> clobber memory.
> 
>   Ah.  That suggests that HEAD is in fact _missing_ an optimisation that 4.3
> gets right.  Maybe I should file a PR after all.

  It also suggests that the register motion is fairly gratuitous, I think.

	movl	%eax, -12(%ebp)	 # tmp79, ret
	movl	-12(%ebp), %eax	 # ret, D.2120

  Given that ret is a local variable that goes immediately out of scope, I
can't see any reason to update the stack slot.  I can prevent this happening
by declaring the temporary as 'register __typeof (*t) ret __asm ("%eax");' but
doesn't this mean we're missing a trick here between some combination of
regalloc, copyprop and dead-store elimination?

    cheers,
      DaveK