--- Comment #4 from zero at colonel-panic dot org 2007-10-30 16:45 ---
Subject: Re: gcc-4.2.2 generates bad code on ARM
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 15:54
> ---
> It doesn't matter that you store the add
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 15:54 ---
It doesn't matter that you store the address of param to a volatile variable
(this store is not removed), but that
DMA_ADDR_REG = (unsigned long) data;
does not make the stack local live longer than t
--- Comment #2 from zero at colonel-panic dot org 2007-10-30 15:31 ---
Subject: Re: gcc-4.2.2 generates bad code on ARM
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 14:31
> ---
> huh? you initialize DMA_ADDR_REG to the
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 14:31 ---
huh? you initialize DMA_ADDR_REG to the address of param (which is on the
stack).
The initialization of the contents of param is unused and as such dropped
(but due to -fno-strict-aliasing the compiler assumes it es
