https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #21 from Paul McKenney ---
> Given C++ abandoned 'volatile' I would rather suggest to document
> better ways of achieving that and if existing ways are too cumbersome
> we should see a way to do this without altering behavior on 'vol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #7 from Paul McKenney ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Generally GCCs middle-end considers volatile stores (or loads) to not have
> any side-effects that are not visible in the IL. That includes (synchronous)
> rai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
Paul McKenney changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulmckrcu at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
--- Comment #6 from Paul McKenney ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I don't think bug 3506 has been fixed (its status seems wrong to me). But
> don't worry, there are several other duplicates that still have status NEW
> (bug 50677
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
--- Comment #4 from Paul McKenney ---
Bug 3506 has since been fixed, at least for the example shown in this bug
report, as you can see if you look at the godbolt, which shows that both
compilers generate a single addl instruction, which is exactl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327
--- Comment #1 from Paul McKenney ---
This manifests on GCC trunk (see the godbolt.org URL), but was first noted in
gcc version 7.5.0. This is specific to x86, but might apply to any other
architecture that provides increment-memory instructions
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: paulmckrcu at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Although the code generation for increment (++, --) through a pointer to
volatile has improved greatly over the past 15 years, there is a case
