On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> Do you have a GCC bug report filled out for this issue?
>
> If not, could you fill out a bug report?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--
Andy
___
AVR-GCC-list ma
> -Original Message-
> From: Georg-Johann Lay
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:28 PM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Andy Warner; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Confusing volatile behaviour with 4.6.2
>
>
> The question on combine vs
Weddington, Eric schrieb:
-Original Message-
From: andyw.l...@gmail.com [mailto:andyw.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Andy
Warner
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: Wim Lewis; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Confusing volatile
> -Original Message-
> From: andyw.l...@gmail.com [mailto:andyw.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Andy
> Warner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:08 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Wim Lewis; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Confusing volatile
Wim Lewis schrieb:
On 11/28/11 5:33 AM, Andy Warner wrote:
What is it about this construct that makes the compiler feel free to reorder ?
I assume this must be a very specific use case I've tripped over, if
volatiles were being reordered wholesale in 4.6.2, I'd expect there to
be many, many pro
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> Do you have a GCC bug report filled out for this issue?
>
If the consensus is that this is a genuine bug (there's an awful lot of
false bug reports involving volatiles), I'm happy to do my part and file
the report to get it r
ongnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Wim Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:09 AM
> To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Confusing volatile behaviour with 4.6.2
>
> On 11/28/11 5:33 AM, Andy Warner wrote:
> > What is it about this construct that makes th
On 11/28/11 5:33 AM, Andy Warner wrote:
> What is it about this construct that makes the compiler feel free to reorder ?
> I assume this must be a very specific use case I've tripped over, if
> volatiles were being reordered wholesale in 4.6.2, I'd expect there to
> be many, many problems surfacing
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Paulo Marques wrote:
> [...]
> Does the problem still occur if you assign the variables later and not
> at declaration time, i.e., something like:
>
>unsigned char status, data;
>volatile static int slot = SEARCHING;
>
>status = UCSR0A;
>
Andy Warner wrote:
> [...]
> Here is the USART0 rx interrupt handler that demonstrates the problem
> (apologies in advance, if gmail mangles this):
>
> #define SEARCHING (-2)
> #define BREAK (-1)
> #define MAX_DMX (512)
>
> ISR(USART0_RX_vect)
> {
> unsigned char status =
Andy Warner schrieb:
Here is what the preprocessor produced for this code:
$ avr-gcc -mmcu=atmega128 -Wall -O2 -g -E test.c
...
void __vector_18 (void) __attribute__ ((signal,used,
externally_visible)) ; void __vector_18 (void)
{
unsigned char status = (*(volatile uint8_t *)((0x0B) + 0x20));
11 matches
Mail list logo
