On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 13:58 +0000, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
> 13:58 -------
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > volatile is needed here.
>
> No, the manual says:
> An @code{asm} instruction without any output operands will be treated
> identically to a volatile @code{asm} instruction.
>
> So this insn should be kept even though it isn't explicitly volatile.
>
Then i guess we should teach the FE to just mark them volatile, so we
don't have to worry about this in the middle end.
