From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:47:51 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages
 of	readb, writeb and friends.
In-Reply-To: <4D1F7197.6010607@googlemail.com>
References: <1293015862-3678-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>
	<4D1F1841.5060508@googlemail.com> <4D1F69E9.9030205@ahsoftware.de>
	<4D1F7197.6010607@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <4D1F76D7.8060603@ahsoftware.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
>>> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
>>>> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of
>>>> that
>>>> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in
>>>> __arch_getl().
>>>> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such
>>>> optimizations when
>>>> gcc 4.5.1 is used.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used,
>>>> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the
>>>> current headers.
>>
>>> Do you like to test the patch in the attachment? I named it 'v4'.
>>>
>>> After some thinking and testing, it seems to me that the volatile
>>> optimization issue this patch shall fix is only with the readx()
>>> macros.
>>> So the idea is to drop all writex() changes done in the v3 version of
>>> this patch. With dropping the writex() changes, we would drop all
>>> issues
>>> we discussed with e.g. the GCC statement-expression and the do while
>>> workaround, too.
>>
>> I've come across a bug which reads as the problem might be fixed in
>> gcc 4.5.2:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45052
>>
>> I will test gcc 4.5.2 in the next days.
>
> Have you been able to test v4 of the patch I sent with gcc 4.5.1?

No, sorry, I don't have a test case for consequent write* and I will 
have to write one. I will do such, when testing gcc 4.5.2 (sometimes in 
the next days).

Regards,

Alexander