Problem with reordering of memory accesses

[Franz Sirl]

At 18:26 18.10.00, Michael Schwingen wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:30:42AM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > If you can provide an example, it might be able to be fixed...
>
>This turned out to be quite easy:
>
>typedef struct
>{
>            int x1;
>            short x2;
>   volatile void *x3;
>            void *x4;
>   volatile void *x5;
>            void *x6;
>            void *x7;
>} foo;
>
>void TestFnc(foo *p)
>{
>   p->x5 = 0;
>   p->x3  = 0;
>}

I don't see a reason why gcc should order these accesses. Unless you meant 
to write:

typedef struct {
         int x1;
         short x2;
         void * volatile x3;
         void *x4;
         void * volatile x5;
         void *x6;
         void *x7;
} foo;

or:

typedef volatile struct {
         int x1;
         short x2;
         void *x3;
         void *x4;
         void *x5;
         void *x6;
         void *x7;
} foo;

which do the ordering as expected.

Franz.