[LLVMdev] bug or expected behaviour?
Carl Norum
carl at lytro.com
Tue Jun 4 16:50:26 PDT 2013
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote:
> 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.
'volatile' can't apply to a function, so I'm not sure what you mean. In your example, 'volatile' modifies the 'void'. So I think "theoretically", it doesn't do anything at all.
-- Carl
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list