This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Volatile qualification on pointer and data

From: "Paulo J. Matos" <paulo at matos-sorge dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:57:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
References: <j5adnq$bb4$1@dough.gmane.org> <mcrr53bcgte.fsf@coign.corp.google.com> <j5c2db$mp0$1@dough.gmane.org> <j5c6qa$jcm$1@dough.gmane.org> <j5cdok$3ol$1@dough.gmane.org> <mcraa9y80cj.fsf@coign.corp.google.com> <j5cs3g$aep$1@dough.gmane.org>

On 21/09/11 15:21, David Brown wrote:

And since this
situation would not occur in real code (at least, not code that is
expected to do something useful other than test the compiler's code
generation), there is no harm in making sub-optimal object code.

Actually the reason why I noticed this is because one of our engineers told that GCC stopped generating instructions for certain operations when he moved from GCC45 to GCC46. This code is real code.

Cheers,
--
PMatos

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: David Brown
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: Paulo J. Matos
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: David Brown
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: Paulo J. Matos
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: David Brown
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
  - From: David Brown

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