From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-47826-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25928 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2011 09:07:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 25918 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2011 09:07:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:07:16 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9E97FQ9032068	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:07:15 -0400
Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-55.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.55])	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9E97EAF023767;	Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:07:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4E97FBC1.9080006@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:07:00 -0000
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: gcc optimises out test of value in register-only loop
References: <loom.20111013T124012-691@post.gmane.org> <mcrobxk6v7l.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <mcrobxk6v7l.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2

On 10/14/2011 05:41 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> MikeW <mw_phil@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
>>   volatile register int stop_loop __asm("r5")__;
> 
> gcc does not support volatile register variables.  I think it could be
> meaningful, but it has never worked.

It would be really nasty to implement: we'd have to check for volatility
on every access to a hard register.  The benefits don't seem worth it,
IMO.

Andrew.