On 10 December 2014 at 02:18, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> As mentioned in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00609.html, the
> load/store pair peepholes currently accept volatile mem which can
> cause wrong code as the architecture does not define which part of the
> pair happens f
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> As mentioned in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00609.html, the
> load/store pair peepholes currently accept volatile mem which can
> cause wrong code as the architecture does not define which part of the
> pair happens
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> As mentioned in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00609.html, the
> load/store pair peepholes currently accept volatile mem which can
> cause wrong code as the architecture does not define which part of the
> pair happe
Hi,
As mentioned in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00609.html, the
load/store pair peepholes currently accept volatile mem which can
cause wrong code as the architecture does not define which part of the
pair happens first.
This patch disables the peephole for volatile mem and add
