> My understanding of 'volatile' is that even the resulting code I gave as
> an example is not actually volatile-safe:
>
> mova, !240
> ora, #32
> mov!240, a
>
> as the value stored in address 240 could change just before and/or just
> after the 'or', and get overwritten by the sec
On 09/05/14 21:20, DJ Delorie wrote:
The key to the msp430 change is that I reviewed every pattern that
used the predicates, and only changed the ones where the pattern was
known to be volatile-safe. For the RL78, the devirtualizer may make a
pattern non-volatile-safe, and many patterns are macr
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:20 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> The key to the msp430 change is that I reviewed every pattern that
> used the predicates, and only changed the ones where the pattern was
> known to be volatile-safe. For the RL78, the devirtualizer may make a
> pattern non-volatile-safe, and
The key to the msp430 change is that I reviewed every pattern that
used the predicates, and only changed the ones where the pattern was
known to be volatile-safe. For the RL78, the devirtualizer may make a
pattern non-volatile-safe, and many patterns are macros which are not
always volatile-safe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01108.html
Original Message
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] RL78 - Add predicates to reduce code bloat when
accessing volatile memory.
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:01 +0200
From: Richard Hulme
To: GCC Patches
Hi,
This patch adds predica