[PATCH] D16857: More detailed memory dependence checking between volatile and non-volatile accesses

[Nick Lewycky via llvm-commits]

Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote:
> kparzysz added a comment.
>
> Philip, Nick---could you please review this?

It looks correct to me, but please wait for Philip.

I wish there were a testcase which demonstrated that two non-aliasing 
volatile accesses were dependent, but I don't see any way to write that 
test (maybe you can add more debug print statements to MemDep).

Nick