https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113106
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > The situation with address-spaces isn't valid as we need to preserve the > second load because it's volatile. I think we simply refuse to combine > volatile loads out of caution in the first case. int __seg_gs b; return *(volatile __seg_gs int *) &b + b; But the above is the same w.r.t to volatile as: int a; return *(volatile int *) &a + a; ? BTW: I also checked with clang, and it creates expected code in all cases.
