Re: gcc-2.8.0 miscompiles kernel (Was: gcc-2.8 out...)

Alan Cox (
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:12:28 +0000 (GMT)

> Hmmmmm, are you _sure_ that's a bug ? The cast says that the pointed
> value is volatile, not the pointer itself. So the compiler can, I
> think, still legally assume that the memory zone assigned through the
> pointer will be destroyed after the return.

Oh bog.. I do indeed have the volabloodytile keyword in the wrong place
yes. Try it as he suggested and lets see

> *((u32 * volatile)&eflags)=val; should make it behave though. I'm not
> really sure. That's quite a tricky part of the standard.