https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Luke Geeson from comment #4)
> I understand treating atomics as volatile has historical precedent but a
> case can be made, at least on modern architectures and with improved
> understanding of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #5 from Luke Geeson ---
For the record the %registers are symbolic - simply replace them with concrete
ones containing the location x,y,etc...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110573
--- Comment #4 from Luke Geeson ---
Ah so since atomics are treated as volatile (like LLVM) instructions that
access them cannot inhabit a delay slot. Is it still valid to treat atomics as
volatile?
Consider the following MIPS litmus test:
```
