--- Comment #6 from paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2007-08-18
01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It is still the same issue.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't know of any hardware that would
react differently to this two-instruction sequence:
movli,
--- Comment #5 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2007-08-18 00:31
---
> It is still the same issue.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3506 ***
It isn't the same issue. The submitter of #3506 claimed the code
that GCC currently generates is incorrect, which o
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-18 00:12 ---
It is still the same issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3506 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3506 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remove
--- Comment #3 from segher at kernel dot crashing dot org 2007-08-18 00:12
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> volatile != atomic.
And that is relevant why? Paul is perfectly aware of this, btw.
There might be other reasons why GCC doesn't want to do this
optimisation, but this isn't one
--- Comment #2 from paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2007-08-18
00:11 ---
Hmmm... I wasn't asking for volatile to be atomic, just for it to avoid
generating unnecessary code.
--
paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-18 00:05 ---
volatile != atomic.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3506 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
