[Bug middle-end/45472] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] [Middle-end volatile semantics] ICE: in move_op_ascend, at sel-sched.c:6124 with -fselective-scheduling2

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472

--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 11:43:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> It seems to me that volatile reads/writes should get their own gimple
> statements, not be part of a larger block move.  So instead of
> 
>   vv1 = vv2;
> 
> we should have
> 
>   vv1.a ={v} vv2.a;
>   vv1.b ={v} vv2.b;
> 
> I agree with Paolo's comment in #12 that we want to copy the non-volatile parts
> as a block when possible.  It seems like breaking a simple struct assignment
> into these separate statements would be best done in the gimplifier so that
> front ends don't need to get this right independently.
> 
> Out of curiousity, what is the use case for a non-volatile struct object with
> volatile members?

There is no valid use-case for this.  So I think we should just declare this
issue a non-issue (middle-end wise).  If the C or C++ standards say that
vv1 = vv2 should behave as if the copy was elementwise then the frontends
need changing.  Certainly not the gimplifier - that's not the kitchen-sink
for things you don't want to properly describe in GENERIC to the middle-end ;)