Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme: > 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?
No, sorry, I don't have a test case for consequent write* and I will have to write one. I will do such, when testing gcc 4.5.2 (sometimes in the next days). Regards, Alexander _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
