On Jul 31, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Inline assembly? Yuck. I thought that [llvm-]gcc just marked tons of locals > as volatile?
It does, but then it ends up with all these horrible liveness problems it has to work around. It's also done in a really intrusive way in the type-checker. It looked like my only bet for avoiding that without intrusive changes to IR gen — i.e. some way of saying "okay, these things are volatile even if the AST says they aren't" — was to go back over the function at the end and mark every single load and store as volatile. I didn't really consider that acceptable. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
