Snapshot gcc-11-20220108 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20220108/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 10:35 -0800 schrieb Andrew Pinski:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> > assumption (and hope) was that compile
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
> ordered relativ
> Most C programmers would assume that volatile accesses already
> provides this guarantee, so actually doing so would be good.
I'm a little skeptical of this statement: if it was true, how come the most
recent version of the standard does not provide it 30 years after the language
was first sta
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 16:03 +0100 schrieb David Brown:
> On 08/01/2022 09:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> > assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> > care to
On 1/7/2022 2:55 PM, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
On Jan 7, 2022, at 4:06 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Folks,
In the aarch64 Darwin ABI we have an unusual (OK, several unusual) feature of
the calling convention.
When an argument is passed *in a register* and it is integral and less than SI
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 15:41 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou:
> > Yes, although I think potentially trapping ops
> > are not moved before calls (as this would be
> > incorrect). So do you think it would be feasable
> > to prevent this for volatile too?
>
> Feasible probably, but why would this b
On 08/01/2022 09:32, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
> care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
> ordered relative to observa
> Yes, although I think potentially trapping ops
> are not moved before calls (as this would be
> incorrect). So do you think it would be feasable
> to prevent this for volatile too?
Feasible probably, but why would this be desirable in C? It's not Java!
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 13:41 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
wrote:
Hi Richard,
thank you for your quick response!
I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
accesses and tra
Am Samstag, den 08.01.2022, 13:41 +0100 schrieb Richard Biener:
> On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
> wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
thank you for your quick response!
> > I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
> > accesses and trapping operations. My initial
> > assumpt
On January 8, 2022 9:32:24 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Uecker
wrote:
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
>accesses and trapping operations. My initial
>assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
>care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
>ordered relative to o
Hi Richard,
I have a question regarding reodering of volatile
accesses and trapping operations. My initial
assumption (and hope) was that compilers take
care to avoid creating traps that are incorrectly
ordered relative to observable behavior.
I had trouble finding examples, and my cursory
gla
13 matches
Mail list logo
