From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5628 invoked by alias); 17 May 2005 00:33:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5591 invoked by uid 48); 17 May 2005 00:33:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050517003305.5590.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mrd at alkemio dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20010701090600.3506.89949-quiet@bugs.debian.org> References: <20010701090600.3506.89949-quiet@bugs.debian.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/3506] weird behaviour when incrementing volatile ints X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg02263.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mrd at alkemio dot org 2005-05-17 00:33 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Did you read comment #1. Yes, but it's not clear. > GCC doesn't know what constitutes a reference to a volatile memory Is this to say the GCC developers believe the C language's definition of "volatile" is ambiguous, or that there are situations where "incl x" is operationally distinct from "movl x, %eax; incl %eax; movl %eax, x" when x is volatile? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3506