[PATCH] HOOK_CallHook

[Francois Jacques]

>
> > IMHO, performing code review of the whole tree for missing volatile
keywords
> > would be a waste of time compared to do it on a case by case basis.
Simply
> > keep in mind that those bugs may happen - especially with "aggressive"
> > compilers such as gcc 2.96. If a bug didn't happen with the previous
> > compiler and does show up with the latest release, it might be a good
> > candidate.
>
> But the point is, this is *not* a Wine bug that was just exposed by a
> new compiler -- this is a compiler bug, plain and simple.


Did I write it was a WINE bug? No. It is very clear for me that it *is* a
compiler issue.

I had three choices

a) find a workaround and have people comment on it;
b) disable the optimize phase for gcc 2.96 and have the whole community on
my back;
c) fix gcc.

I went for the easy one.

> Making these variables 'volatile' is not required at all -- 'volatile'
> tells the compiler that the variables might be changed behind the
> compiler's back, e.g. due to being asynchroneously modified by a signal
> handler or something like that.  In this particular case, however, the
> variables are not only not changed behind the compiler's back, they
> are *never* changed at all!

100% agree. Again, it's a quick-yet-efficient workaround to the compiler
problem that just happened to work. While volatile is for variables that are
modified by external factors, it was a good way to prevent all the
optimization - which was just what I wanted.

 > Instead of circumventing the compiler bug in this particular case,
> it might be preferable to find out which optimization phase contains
> the bug, and write a configure check that switches that phase off
> if it detects the bug (like we did with the 2.95.2 strength-reduce bug).

We'll do some research on the optimization phase. Once we found it, can
anybody help us with that autoconf kungfu?

Ciao!
Francois