>From: jconklin@netcom.com (J.T. Conklin)
>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT)

>> So my question is, is this a misstatement of the __asm line that 2.4.5
>> blissfully ignores?   Is this a bug in 2.7.0?  
>
>It's a bug in gcc.  It's been there a long time, and has manifested
>itself on other ports too.  I believe that gcc decides to allocate a
>register for the variable, and then crashes later when the constraints
>of the asm() don't match.
>
>I think there are several places in the tree where:
>
>	(void) &foo;
>
>expressions are used to force variables to be stored in memory.

Why can't you just add 'volatile' to the variable declaration?
-- 
Mike Long <mike.long@analog.com>           http://www.shore.net/~mikel
VLSI Design Engineer         finger mikel@shore.net for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division          CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA                assert(*this!=opinionof(Analog));