This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/33102] volatile excessively suppresses optimizations in range checks
- From: "paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 18 Aug 2007 22:08:53 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/33102] volatile excessively suppresses optimizations in range checks
- References: <bug-33102-14989@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #14 from paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2007-08-18 22:08 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> One should note this is actually hard to do without changing the code for 3506
> also.
And of course if the volatile variable in the 3506 example code was an MMIO
register, there would not be any atomicity, at least not given the hardware I
have come across. And I am not aware of any devices where it would be useful
to blindly increment an MMIO register.
So I believe that this is a non-issue. Or am I missing something?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33102