"Paulo J. Matos" <pa...@matos-sorge.com> writes:
> The following code:
> static const unsigned int foo = 1;
> unsigned int test( void )
> {
> const volatile unsigned int *bar = &foo;
> return ( *bar );
> }
>
> in GCC45 works as expected:
> $test:
> ld AL,#foo ;; AL is return register
> bra 0,X ;; end function
>
> in GCC46:
> $test:
> ld AL,0
> bra 0,X
>
> This is worrying because qualifying the data as volatile should be
> enough to prevent these sort of optimizations. It did until GCC46.
I agree that this looks like a bug. Please file a bug report marked as
a regression.
Ian
