Manish Baphna wrote: > A quick update, Though I couldn't really found real issue , I found > an interesting solution which worked. magic word is 'volatile' :) > > > Original two lines were > > dout.data[15 - count] > = (uint8_t)(((long long unsigned int) > (*(soc_cpr_dbusdataout_->sig_value_upper)) > & (mask << ((8+count)*8)))>>((8+count)*8)); > > cout << "Dout data " << (uint64_t)((dout.data)[15-count]) << endl; > > What I did was inserting this line just above Line#1 > volatile uint32_t shift_val = ((8+count)*8) ; > and used this in above Line#1 , and then I removed Line#2 and this time it worked. > ( First I tried without using 'volatile' and it didn't help ) > Another workaround that did the same thing was making > count as volatile. Interesting. Is this a multi-threaded application? The other possibility is an array bounds overflow. > These two lines are in for loop which goes for count = 0 to 7 , I > don't know why compiler is being lazy here to read it everytime > unless I make it volatile. The compiler isn't supposed to read it everytime unless you make it volatile. > Should it be logged as bug in gcc somewhere ? Not until you can come up with a test cases that someone else can run. Andrew.
