Hi Richard,
On 3/23/21 7:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 3/22/21 4:54 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
It looks this issue can be avoided after "volatile" is applied to
@target_page. However, I'm not sure if it's the correct fix to have.
Certainly not.
That is the exact opposite of what we want. We want to minimize the number of
reads from the variable, not maximize them.
Yes, It's something I was thinking of. "volatile" can make
@target_page visible to gcc, but maximizes the number of
reads. By the way, your patch to use "-fno-lto" worked for
me and it has been split into 3 patches by Phil. Richard,
thanks for the quick fixup :)
Thanks,
Gavin
