From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-429746-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20958 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2013 11:51:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20894 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2013 11:51:44 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/47409] volatile struct member bug
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47409-4-mkiZIZXguj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00986.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409

--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Francesco Zappa Nardelli from comment #19)
> >> does not perform the volatile load access.
> 
> > It does starting with GCC 4.8.2 and was a bug in older GCC versions.
> 
> I just tested my example (comment 16) against yesterday trunk
> 
>    gcc version 4.9.0 20130912 (experimental) (GCC) 
> 
> and indeed the volatile load access is no longer removed.  This is a good
> news.
> 
> However the code I reported in bug 58409, which has been marked duplicate of
> this bug, still exhibits the incorrect reordering of volatile accesses.  It
> thus seems to me that either bug 58409 is not a duplicate of this one, or
> the fix is incomplete.  

It is a duplicate of this one because it is about a volatile struct member
in a not volatile object g_3[1][1][1].  And it is about the aggregate
assignment to that struct.

> -francesco