Re: 68K GNU Compiler
Michael Schnell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.uclinux.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 08/08/2012 04:04 PM, Michael Schnell wrote: > With "volatile" the code is a lot worse, I don't understand this, as > the "normal" code not only fulfills what is necessary to volatile ... In fact the compiler might be right that "volatile" also includes reading and writing all bytes of a variable with any access (as the hardware might derive a trigger from same <e.g. when reading or writing a hardware FiFo> ). Thus in-memory bit instructions, that only access a single byte might be not appropriate for volatile int variables. But nonetheless it's not a good idea of the compiler to avoid a memory->memory move instruction for volatiles. -Michael _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev