------- Comment #15 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-11 07:09 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > I didn't get around to commenting on the patch; I'll just note that it is > conservative. We don't have to block every instruction, just those which use > memory.
True, but as described in the gcc-patches@ mailing list, this situation should not happen often. OTOTH, if there is some standard way to insert memory blockage no-ops, we can use these instead of unspec_volatile. > Do we have to worry about the function epilogue? I don't see any reason why > the scheduler would move any of the pop instructions ahead of something which > references off of %rbp. But I also don't see anything which explicitly > prevents that from happening. We should also add blockage there. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
