Just so you are aware that is Martin not Martell. Not sure if that was just an autocorrect or a typo but Martin is the one doing this work here.
On Mon 12 Mar 2018 at 12:20, Martin Storsjö <mar...@martin.st> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Martin Storsjö wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2018, David Grayson wrote: > > > >> Martell, did you send a bug report to clang too? That seems like a > >> serious bug for them to have. > > > > I didn't send one yet, but I will. It's curious as it seems to work fine > for > > x86_64 though. > > > >> Also, "asm volatile" statements cannot be removed, reordered or > >> cached, right? It seems like a bad idea to hamper GCC's optimizations > >> and performance as a workaround for a clang bug. > > > > Well, if it'd be inline functions in a header, I'd be inclined to agree. > All > > of these are in non-inline functions (e.g. like the sqrt function, where > you > > expect it to always produce one "fsqrt" instruction), so I don't expect > any > > losses there. > > > > However, I do see a few instances of similar inline asm snippets in > math.h, > > and there, volatile indeed would be suboptimal. > > Actually, it seems like volatile already is specified in all the > corresponding cases in math.h. > > // Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-w64-public mailing list > Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
