From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:10:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p508B796B.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.121.107]:40380 "EHLO dea.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:10:04 +0000 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1L19pK16773; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:09:51 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:09:51 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Kip Walker Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: __volatile__ for asms in unaligned.c Message-ID: <20030221020950.E6463@linux-mips.org> References: <3E555A2E.5920F387@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3E555A2E.5920F387@broadcom.com>; from kwalker@broadcom.com on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:43:58PM -0800 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 1501 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:43:58PM -0800, Kip Walker wrote: > Anyway, is there a reason these aren't marked as volatile? The gcc docs > have the scary comment "You can prevent an `asm' instruction from being > deleted, MOVED SIGNIFICANTLY, or combined, by writing the keyword > `volatile' after the`asm'." It's a valid code movement by gcc's no longer really new basic block reordering thing. I admit I'm pretty surprised this wasn't found before. So I just added the volatiles. Ralf