From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NjzJr-0002Yi-6r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:17:15 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43955 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NjzJq-0002YZ-Il
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:17:14 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <jay.foad@gmail.com>) id 1NjzJq-0004PI-0W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:17:14 -0500
Received: from mail-bw0-f218.google.com ([209.85.218.218]:63692)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jay.foad@gmail.com>) id 1NjzJp-0004Ou-Nd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:17:13 -0500
Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so2861241bwz.2
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B841757.3070808@redhat.com>
References: <ee2e06e91002230650l588c7304p61d5b9a312fd4f18@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B841757.3070808@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:17:11 +0000
Message-ID: <ee2e06e91002231017q24a55763t6f2d63f6938341c2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jay Foad <jay.foad@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: gcc 4.4 miscompiling cpu_exec() ?
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> Can you try this patch:

It works! Thanks.

> and if it works, possibly only each hunk of it?

Just the first hunk: works!
Just the second hunk: doesn't work

Can you explain why the volatile is necessary? Or is it working around
a problem with the compiler?

Thanks,
Jay.