On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote: > Hello, > > Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme: >> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote: >>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions, >>> avoid that as done in the kernel. >>> >>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of >>> that >>> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in >>> __arch_getl(). >>> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such >>> optimizations when >>> gcc 4.5.1 is used. >>> >>> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used, >>> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the >>> current headers. > >> Do you like to test the patch in the attachment? I named it 'v4'. >> >> After some thinking and testing, it seems to me that the volatile >> optimization issue this patch shall fix is only with the readx() >> macros. >> So the idea is to drop all writex() changes done in the v3 version of >> this patch. With dropping the writex() changes, we would drop all >> issues >> we discussed with e.g. the GCC statement-expression and the do while >> workaround, too. > > I've come across a bug which reads as the problem might be fixed in > gcc 4.5.2: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45052 > > I will test gcc 4.5.2 in the next days.
Have you been able to test v4 of the patch I sent with gcc 4.5.1? Thanks Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
