On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 at 13:11, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> The correct fix is to specify the pointer in question as "volatile" > variable, so that gcc stops making assumptions about its liveness. You are right as a manual, Denis. ...but god knows what gcc does with a volatile which is not associated with a hardware I/O line. (LOL) However, from a PoV of least-change and least-footprint, volatile wins as work-around. So volatile be! Best regards, R- _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
