From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds To: Paul Koning Cc: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, gcc2@cygnus.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: New problems with gcc-2.8.0 based code - NOW FIXED! Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:27:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <9712302006.AA15131@kona.> X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg01249.html Paul Koning writes: > > On the other hand, an asm that has no explicit output clearly must > have side effects, otherwise it wouldn't have been put there. So for > such an asm, "volatile" is the right treatment. I agree 100%. Any asm without any outputs by very definition has to have some side effect to be useful, and as such the compiler should consider it volatile by default. That makes gcc not only conform with the documentation, it is also the only interpretation that makes any sense at all. The lack of a "novolatile" keyword is a non-issue, as anybody who would ever want to use it seems rather misguided. Linus