From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-47870-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11151 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2011 08:30:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 11104 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2011 08:30:13 -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; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:29:54 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9H8TrtX029490	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:29:54 -0400
Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-55.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.55])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9H8Tqnk032231;	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:29:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4E9BE77F.5090508@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:30:00 -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> <4E97FBC1.9080006@redhat.com> <mcrobxj54bm.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <mcrobxj54bm.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/msg00146.txt.bz2

On 10/15/2011 04:19 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> No, it's not that bad.  At the tree level, we would only have to check
> on every reference to a DECL for which DECL_REGISTER is true.  When
> expanding to RTL, we would replace each reference with a special
> UNSPEC_VOLATILE which we handle specially when generating asm code.  Or
> perhaps simply expand each reference to a specially handled asm
> statement.

Ah yes, that would indeed work.

Still doesn't seem worth it!  :-)

Andrew.