[LLVMdev] bug or expected behaviour?

[Tyler Hardin]

I was suggesting to add it to the function, like
volatile void func(..);
Theoretically, this would tell the compiler not to omit seemingly
superfluous calls to func.

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu>
wrote:

> If this were a problem with an omitted statement involving a normal
variable, I'd guess you're missing a volatile qualifier. I'm not 100% sure
volatile is a valid qualifier for functions, but try it.

Well, yes, if I change the signature to:

        void test(char * volatile x)

It works, but that's because I'm hamstringing the optimizers.  I don't
really see how that has anything to do with the question, though.  If I
change the signature to:

        void test(int x)

It works too... what's special about 'char *'?

> If RTOS stands for real time OS, then reading up on volatile would be a
really good idea.

I'm familiar with 'volatile' semantics, thanks.

> P.S. Sorry Carl, you're going to receive this twice. I forget to CC the
list.

No problem.

-- Carl


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130604/bc9bb5d9/attachment.html>