Hi Richard,
On 7/10/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/10/07, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While upgrading a port of mine to trunk for a testcase I noticed the
> following . Its more of a question for a language lawyer I guess.
>
> The test looks like this.
>
> int spinlock[2];
>
> void foo (void)
> {
> volatile int * spinlock0;
>
> while (*spinlock0 == 0)
> {
> /* do nothing */
> }
> }
>
> Store CCP folds away the assignment in the following way :
>
>
> Folded statement: *spinlock0_1 = 0;
> into: spinlock[0] = 0;
>
> Folded statement: *spinlock1_2 = 0;
> into: spinlock[1] = 0;
>
> Folded statement: D.1498_3 = *spinlock0_1;
> into: D.1498_3 = spinlock[0];
>
> main ()
> {
> volatile int * spinlock1;
> volatile int * spinlock0;
> int D.1498;
>
> <bb 2>:
> spinlock0_1 = &spinlock[0];
> spinlock1_2 = &spinlock[1];
> spinlock[0] = 0;
> spinlock[1] = 0;
>
> <bb 3>:
> D.1498_3 = spinlock[0];
> if (D.1498_3 != 0)
> goto <bb 3>;
> else
> goto <bb 4>;
>
> <bb 4>:
> return;
>
> }
>
> which later results in the loop getting optimized away. However
> marking spinlock as volatile let the loop remain.
>
>
> I originally thought this to be a problem . However after chatting
> about it on IRC I wasn't sure if this was (un)defined behaviour. I
> looked through the standard but was unable to figure out from the
> prose , whether it stated some place that the object pointed to also
> should also have the same type qualifiers as the pointer being used to
> access this.
We usually try hard to keep this working (the testcase above is not complete
for sure).
Ah yes, I'd missed out an assignment . void foo (void)
> {
> volatile int * spinlock0;
Should be volatile int *spinlock0 = &spinlock[0];
}
Filed as PR 32721.
cheers
Ramana
Richard.
--
Ramana Radhakrishnan
