Why 2.0.34 compiles with gcc 2.8.* and egcs, whereas 2.0.33 will not , work properly

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19980606152449.1117.qmail@md.dent.med.uni-muenchen.de >you write:

  >         *(&eflags) = (eflags & 0xffffcfff) | (level << 12);
  > 
  > Doesn't the mere presence of &eflags in the source constitute an alias
  > and force the evaluation strictly according to the rules of the
  > abstract machine, even without specifying `volatile' ?  Otherwise, why
  > would one write *(&x) anyway ?
No, it depends on the scope of eflags and other factors.

Consider a good dead store elimination optimizer (which we're slowly
adding the building blocks for).  If "eflags" has function scope,
and no path from the store into &eflags has a load which might use
the same address, then the store to &eflags is dead and can be
deleted.

I believe this particular "bug" has already been classified by
Linus as a bug in Linux.

jeff