This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
| Nathan Sidwell writes:
| > Dale Johannesen wrote:
| >
| > > And we don't have to document the behavior at all; it is not documented
| > > now.
| > I disagree. It's not documented explicitly in gcc now, because it is doing
| > what the std permits, and so documented there. We should document either
| >
| > a) that current gcc is not breaking the std, and Mike's example is invalid
| > code, if one expects a volatile read. This would be a FAQ like thing.
I vote for (a).
[...]
| This is a bad extension to gcc and will cause much trouble, just like
| the old guarantee to preserve empty loops.
Hear, hear, hear.
-- Gaby