This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 06:53:40PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: > OK, this time I think I've found a genuine problem with the > optimiser. No, you've found a problem with your source code. :) > Consider the following code: [...] > Simply put, the optimizer seems to think this is equivalent to [...] Assuming that's C code, the two _are_ equivalent -- it says that in the language definition. IOW, your source code is incorrect for what you're trying to do. > Any ways around this (besides not optimising at all)? You need to use the "volatile" qualifier. -- Grant Edwards grante@visi.com ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |