On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:24:21PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> What do people think of this patch? This seems to fix the problem
> case without breaking Michael's case. It basically avoids store
> speculation: we don't write to a MEM unless the function
> unconditionally writes to the MEM anyhow.
This still isn't enough. If you have a non-pure/non-const CALL_INSN
before the unconditional store into it, you need to return false from
noce_mem_unconditionally_set_p as that function could have a barrier
in it. Similarly for inline asm or __sync_* builtin generated insns
(not sure ATM if just stopping on UNSPEC_VOLATILE/ASM_INPUT/ASM_OPERANDS
or something else is needed).
Jakub
