Re: Problem with reordering of memory accesses

[Michael Schwingen <michaels at stochastik dot rwth-aachen dot de>]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> I don't see a reason why gcc should order these accesses. Unless you meant 
> to write:
> 
> typedef struct {
>          int x1;
>          short x2;
>          void * volatile x3;
>          void *x4;
>          void * volatile x5;
>          void *x6;
>          void *x7;
> } foo;

I guess that is indeed what I really wanted (and it produces the right
results).

Although I must confess that I donīt quite understand the difference in the
declaration.

thanks,
Michael