On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:21:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> So when Richard Gunther says "a memory clobber doesn't cover automatic >> storage", to me that very clearly spells "gcc is buggy as hell". >> Because automatic storage with its address taken _very_ much gets >> clobbered by things like memset etc. If the compiler doesn't >> understand that, the compiler is just broken. > > I'll leave the discussion about meaning of "memory" clobber aside to > Richard,
Of course GCC handles memset just fine. Note that I was refering to non-address taken automatic storage for "memory" (even though when double-checking the current implementation GCC even thinks that all address-taken memory is clobbered by asms as soon as they have at least one memory operand or a "memory" clobber). It's just that in future we might want to improve this and I think not covering non-address taken automatic storage for "memory" is sensible. And I see that you don't see address-taken automatic storage as a sensible choice to exclude from "memory", and I have noted that. Btw, I still haven't seen an testcase for the actual problem we are talking about. Richard.
