[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2024-03-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2024-03-01 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #10 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e084a6406ea0587beda62684b9d4856292acacfa commit r13-8389-ge084a6406ea0587beda62684b9d4856292acacfa Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2024-02-10 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39920447f876128ff7942a9cd931021800865894 commit r14-8910-g39920447f876128ff7942a9cd931021800865894 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2024-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2024-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- For volatile I'm afraid we can't pass n as an argument to the magic function, perhaps we could pass its address to it and do the load in there. Perhaps ditto for the atomics (that is C only of course), but

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2023-07-21 Thread muecker at gwdg dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #6 from Martin Uecker --- One should check whether there is a similar issue with atomics, at least regarding accidentally introducing memory ordering or so.

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2023-07-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- An assumption like this is quite useless anyway, but ...

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2023-07-20 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > > Is this a bug? The standard defines accessing volatile objects as > > side-effects so it's not allowed to merge

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2023-07-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Seems like lowering passes everything via value rather than some stuff by reference

[Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile variable

2023-07-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110754 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-07-20