Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...

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