This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Does the keyword volatile work?

From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: "Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2 at cox dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 03:59:19 +1000
Subject: Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
References: <3EBFD2E4.2090606@cox.net> <20030512173227.GA29256@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> <3EBFDC8C.4000101@cox.net> <20030512180548.GC29256@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> <m3smrjvwb6.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

On 13-May-2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
> 
> | The wording in the standard prohibits optimizing away accesses to volatile
> | *objects*, but doesn't say anything about volatile rvalues.
> 
> C has no notion of rvalue.

By "rvalue", I mean any expression which is not an lvalue.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Geoff Keating

References:
- Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Stephen P. Smith
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Stephen P. Smith
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]