http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58409
--- Comment #2 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli ---
Yes, it does fix the issue.
So this reordering is another effect of gcc not considering accessing volatile
fields in non-volatile structs as volatile access (as in bug 47409). Can I ask
about gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58409
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does:
g_3[0][0][0].f1 = (**g_4).f1;
Fix the issue if so it is a dup of bug 47409 really.
