Lemme preface this by saying that I've talked to gcc guys before doing this. On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:43:50AM -0800, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Uhm... (a) it is correct, even if the compiler doesn't use it now, it > allows the compiler to CSE it in the future; Well, the compiler won't CSE asm blocks due to the difference in the labels, for example, so the heuristic won't detect them as equivalent blocks. Also, compiler guys said that they might consider inlining pure functions later, in the IPA stage but that's future stuff. This is how I understood it, at least. > (b) it is documentation; That could be a comment instead. Otherwise we will wonder again why this is marked pure. > (c) there is an actual bug here: the "volatile" implies a side effect, > which in reality is not present, inhibiting CSE. > > So the correct fix is to remove "volatile", not remove "__pure". There's not really a volatile there: /* * GCC 'asm goto' miscompiles certain code sequences: * * http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58670 * * Work it around via a compiler barrier quirk suggested by Jakub Jelinek. * * (asm goto is automatically volatile - the naming reflects this.) */ #define asm_volatile_goto(x...) do { asm goto(x); asm (""); } while (0) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
