This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- From: "'jtv'" <jtv at xs4all dot nl>
- To: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Cc: "'dewar at gnat dot com'" <dewar at gnat dot com>, paulus at samba dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, trini at kernel dot crashing dot org, velco at fadata dot bg
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:44:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E407@IIS000>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:44:59AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>
> NO; the standard here is clear: any access to a volatile object is a side
> effect (see , and optimization is NOT allowed to eliminate side effects, and
> must do them respecting sequence points, even if it determines that the code
> will in fact do nothing
Thank you. That makes it absolutely clear.
Jeroen