This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: msp430 port


On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 02:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> I'd say it's not as simple as you make it out to be.  You can't blindly
>>> combine operations on volatile memory.
>> 
>> I'm not blindly combining them, I'm combining them when I know the
>> hardware will do the volatile-correct thing.
> You're missing the point.  If the programmer wrote two statements which hit volatile memory and you've got some pattern which matches those two statements, then with your change you'll end up combining them, that's wrong.

Give a specific example.  I don't buy this.  Support your position with the semantics of the code given the change, and the semantics as required by the language standard.

> I fully understand that.  But that doesn't change the fact that if the programmer wrote separate statements with volatile operands you can't combine them.

Again you say this with no backing what-so-ever.

> You simply don't have enough context at any point to know if what you're doing is safe or not.

Then, you can give a concrete example of code that will fail.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]