https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b60bc913cca7439d29a7ec9e9a7f448d8841b43c
commit r12-7721-gb60bc913cca7439d29a7ec9e9a7f448d8841b43c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52650&action=edit
gcc12-pr104971.patch
Here is untested patch with the optimization not to expand the pushf/pop at all
if we don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Cooper ---
So yes - my experimentation did start from investigating the memory ordering
behaviour of these builtins, based on a thread on LKML.
The pushf in readflags and popf in writeflags have wildly different order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|Optimisation for
