Summary: | Less-than-ideal code generation for incrementing volatile variables | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | gcc | Reporter: | Matthew Dempsky <mrd> |
Component: | target | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | gcc-bugs |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | 4.0.1 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Host: | i686-pc-linux-gnu | Target: | |
Build: | Known to work: | ||
Known to fail: | Last reconfirmed: |
Description
Matthew Dempsky
2005-05-15 09:23:12 UTC
There is another bug about this around somewhere. This is invalid, read the comments in PR 3506 which this is a dup of. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3506 *** >omewhat also related, "(void)x;" still accesses memory when x is volatile --
> I suppose this might be desirable, however.
It is because you say to load from x.
|