https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 29 Apr 2025, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119982 > > Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill > | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=60749 > > --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > > > and nothing in the RTL pipeline sees to "fix" this - forwprop or > > now late_combine comes to my mind (RTL combine doesn't work across > > BBs either). > > That is because both are very conserative when it comes to volatile mem. See > PR > 60749 (and others). So that to me means we'd either WONTFIX the original bugreport and remove the test or come to senses and allow optimizations to the addressing mode of volatile mems. At least GIMPLE (and TER, as can be seen) have no problems with "optimizing" volatiles - and in this case the "volatile" isn't even visible, it's a call argument on GIMPLE.
