> On 07/14/2010 11:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> There are some discussions on:
>>
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02001.html
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00001.html
>>
>> Are they related?
>>
>
> Not directly as far as I can tell.
>
> The issue is if gcc can ever reorder, duplicate or elide a volatile
> operation (either asm volatile or a volatile-annotated memory
> reference.) In my (and Linus') opinion, this would be an incredibly
> serious bug.
>
>