On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:09:15PM +0800, Liu Hao wrote:
> On 2017/8/14 20:41, Alan Modra wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 10:25:14PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> >>On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 03:35:15AM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >>>Using "m"(*pStr) as an (unused) input parameter has no effect.
> >>
> >>Use "m" (*(const void *)pStr) and ignore the warning, or use
> >>"m" (*(const struct {char a; char x[];} *) pStr).
> >
> >or even better "m" (*(const char (*)[]) pStr).
> >
>
> This should work in the sense that GCC now thinks bytes adjacent to `pStr`
> are subject to modification by the asm statement.
>
> But I just tried GCC 7.2 and it seems that even if such a "+m" constraint is
> the only output parameter of an asm statement and there is no `volatile` or
> the "memory" clobber, GCC optimizer will not optimize the asm statement
> away, which is the case if a plain `"+m"(*pStr)` is used.
I wasn't advocating a "+m" constraint in this case. Obviously it's
wrong to say scasb modifies memory. That aside though, I'm mainly
interested in gcc-8 and see "+m"(*p) preventing dead code removal,
even when all outputs of the asm are unused (including of course the
array pointed at by p). Probably a bug.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
