On 03/04/2018 01:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > I think posix says you have to mark such variables volatile. So I > fully agree with your analysis of why setjmp isn't special for RA. It > would be only making non-conforming code work by accident. Note the code we're carrying around has its origins prior to the introduction of volatile into the C standard. It may be the case that we can and should rethink all this behavior in a modern world where setjmp/longjmp semantics are better refined and programmers are expected to use volatile to indicate the behavior they want.
I'm not sure I'd want to do that during stage4 though. Seems like a gcc-9 kind of thing. jeff
