https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94145
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So what prevents GIMPLE from doing the transform to an indirect call and
hoisting the call address computation out of the loop? I fear your volatile
marking is
papering over an entirely different issue. Of course it will likely work
as a workaround since nobody is going to do that above mentioned dance. Maybe
code like
void foo();
void bar()
{
void (volatile fn*)() = foo;
void (fn2 *)() = fn;
for (int i = 0; i<10000; ++i)
fn2();
}
will expose the same "issue" whatever it really is?
