gcc compiler bug (sparc, ppc)

[Joel Sherrill]

Sergei Organov wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> writes:
>
>   
>> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 17:52 +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
>>     
>>> Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> writes:
>>>       
>>>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>         
>>> [...]
>>>       
>>>>> IMO, this is bad advice, these ain't no volatiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Not in the general sense but this looks remarkably like the RTEMS chain code
>>>> and the intent there was very simple.  The code was originally in assembly
>>>> language and we really meant each memory load or store to occur.
>>>>
>>>> I would go so far as to assert that most of the RTEMS SuperCore and
>>>> APIs are written with this intent.  It was written as C that is just
>>>> marginally above assembly language.  RTEMS generally has very simple C
>>>> statements.
>>>>         
>>> Do you suggest to declare all core RTEMS variables volatile? ;)
>>>       
>> I am asking myself what Joel might have had in his coffee this morning ;)
>>
>>     
>>> Anyway, how is it relevant provided this case is most probably just a
>>> GCC bug?  Moreover, the bug apparently even does not bite in normal -O2
>>> builds,
>>>       
>> Is it? I haven't tried to investigate.
>>     
>
> That's how I've read what Till have posted, but now, after re-reading
> his post, I fear I was wrong.
>   

Ignore what I said.. is Till's code tripping a bug in gcc?

--joel
> -- Sergei.
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.com
> http://rtems.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>