On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:43:58PM -0800, Kip Walker wrote: > Anyway, is there a reason these aren't marked as volatile? The gcc docs > have the scary comment "You can prevent an `asm' instruction from being > deleted, MOVED SIGNIFICANTLY, or combined, by writing the keyword > `volatile' after the`asm'." It's a valid code movement by gcc's no longer really new basic block reordering thing. I admit I'm pretty surprised this wasn't found before. So I just added the volatiles. Ralf
