[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?
From: |
E. Weddington |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ? |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:44:35 GMT |
> Good day!
>
> I have subscribed on "avr-libc-dev" only a few days back
and,
> probably, not I know all circumstances of this decision.
>
> In my opinion, there is no necessity to
include "volatile" in
ÍÁËÒ> Ï "__LPM"
> and other. The result of reading (the second argument
asm), instead of
the>
> fact of presence of a code "lpm" in the given place is
important only.
>
> Presence "volatile" does not enable to lead quite
justified optimization.
Originally, the inline assembly had not been marked
volatile. However, I had gotten a bug report stating that
the GCC optimizer had rearranged the inline assembly to the
point where it wasn't working as defined. The fix was to
mark all the inline assembly macros as volatile so the
optimizer will leave them alone and have them work as
defined. It would be great if you have a better solution
that would work under all levels of optimization.
Eric
Weddington
- [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, Dmitry K., 2003/06/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?,
E. Weddington <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, E. Weddington, 2003/06/16
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, Unknown, 2003/06/16
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, E. Weddington, 2003/06/16
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, E. Weddington, 2003/06/17
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, E. Weddington, 2003/06/17
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] volatile in pgmspace.h ?, E. Weddington, 2003/06/17