Eric Botcazou wrote on 06/21/06 10:05:
> It seems to me that the volatility should be accounted for in the > VALUE_HANDLE > itself only, not in (de)references to it. > As Richard and Andrew pointed out, the bug is that we try to compute the value number of a statement with volatile references in it. If the statement is not marked as having volatile references, then it should be. If the value numbering routines are not checking for volatility, then they should be.
