| To: | Kip Walker <kwalker@broadcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: __volatile__ for asms in unaligned.c |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:09:51 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <3E555A2E.5920F387@broadcom.com>; from kwalker@broadcom.com on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:43:58PM -0800 |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <3E555A2E.5920F387@broadcom.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:43:58PM -0800, Kip Walker wrote: > Anyway, is there a reason these aren't marked as volatile? The gcc docs > have the scary comment "You can prevent an `asm' instruction from being > deleted, MOVED SIGNIFICANTLY, or combined, by writing the keyword > `volatile' after the`asm'." It's a valid code movement by gcc's no longer really new basic block reordering thing. I admit I'm pretty surprised this wasn't found before. So I just added the volatiles. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] allow CROSS_COMPILE override, Jun Sun |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Ramdisk image on flash., Atsushi Nemoto |
| Previous by Thread: | __volatile__ for asms in unaligned.c, Kip Walker |
| Next by Thread: | [patch] vr41xx giu bug fix, Yoichi Yuasa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |