[Bug c/45126] New: volatile lost in optimization

2010-07-29 Thread majbrock at dse dot nl
) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__)); extern void __assert_perror_fail (int __errnum, __const char *__file, unsigned int __line, __const char *__function) __attribute__ ((__nothrow__)) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__)); extern void __assert (const char *__assertion, const char *__file, i

[Bug c/45126] volatile lost in optimization

2010-07-29 Thread majbrock at dse dot nl
--- Comment #2 from majbrock at dse dot nl 2010-07-29 12:00 --- Ok, that is a choice. But even then vus is read only once, where it appeared twice in the expression. What about the possible side-effects of reading a volatile? -- majbrock at dse dot nl changed: What

[Bug c/45126] volatile lost in optimization

2010-07-29 Thread majbrock at dse dot nl
--- Comment #4 from majbrock at dse dot nl 2010-07-29 12:41 --- Andreas said: >> That does not change the fact that vus*vus can be assumed to be non-negative. And then this bug was closed again. So because one part of my report is dismissed you also dismiss the other part? I a

[Bug c/45126] volatile lost in optimization

2010-07-29 Thread majbrock at dse dot nl
--- Comment #7 from majbrock at dse dot nl 2010-07-29 13:30 --- Thank you both for looking into it and explaining the behaviour. I feel stupid and apologize, because I was certain that it was not read twice. Yet now I can no longer reproduce that, so I guess I was wrong after all