Subject: re: USB stack needs early review (Re: Someone should fix our USB stack...)
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew green <email@example.com>
Date: 03/23/2007 06:07:17
> No good. The compiler is still allowed to make optimizations on the
> accesses if you don't declare it volatile. And that might cause the
> code to break anyway. It's not only a cache problem.
No, the compiler is not allowed to keep cached in a register a memory
access across a function call, precisely because it cannot know if
that function call modifies the memory.
don't callee vs. caller saved regs give the compiler a way around this?