Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bernd Linsel <bl1-thispartdoesnotbelonghere@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:05:17 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <vbd2tt$e0ld$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb2hir$1ju7q$1@dont-email.me>
 <8lcadjhnlcj5se1hrmo232viiccjk5alu4@4ax.com> <vb4amr$2rcbt$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep5.133102@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vbchiv$cde4$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep5.174939@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 22:05:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="518fd0342dd77f932c440d1090ec85af";
	logging-data="459437"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VyFmQVkbBU1EKv2VlODOO"
User-Agent: Betterbird (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N5QhCRK5m8dBE9rsTmTN9ll3NbA=
In-Reply-To: <2024Sep5.174939@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2301

On 05.09.24 17:49, Anton Ertl wrote:
> 
> Nobody said that gcc did anything wrong here.  We were, however,
> surprised that -fno-reorder-blocks did not suppress the reordering; we
> reported this as bug, but were told that this option does something
> different from what it says.  Anyway, we developed a workaround.  And
> we also developed a workaround for the code duplication problem that
> showed up in gcc-7.
> 

Have you tried interspersing `asm volatile("")` statements?

It is very often an effective means to prevent gcc from reordering code 
from before and after the asm statement.

If you additional specify inputs, e.g. `asm volatile("" :: "r" (foo))`, 
you can force gcc to keep `foo` alive up to this point.

-- 
Bernd Linsel