Re: [tree-ssa] Fix gimplification of volatile asms [patch]

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 18:28, Jason Merrill wrote:

> No, it doesn't.  Actually, looking at the code again, the problem is that
> *stmt_p and stmt aren't the same thing; *stmt_p is the first statement in a
> series, which is unlikely to be the ASM_STMT we're interested in.
>
Oh, right.  I'd missed the loop we're in.  *blush*.

> Having checking in the ASM_VOLATILE_P macro would have caught this.  Oops.
> 
It should be a matter of wrapping ASM_EXPR_CHECK() around the macro,
right?


Diego.