This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh at mimosa dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:07:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: volatile semantics
- References: <851D2CB0-93DF-4C49-A6A8-8895DB1A08F9@apple.com> <42778D99.7070904@codesourcery.com> <b0f8ff9938df57bbfda0ec3aea4fc02b@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507161250120.1478@redshift.mimosa.com> <1121532997.29893.6.camel@linux.site> <m3oe92v5ij.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
> | There is no point in type qualifiers if they can be simply changed at
> | will. Do not lie about your objects, and you will not be screwed over.
>
> only if the language you're implementing the compiler for says so, no
> matter what nifty transformation you could have done.
>
Except that nobody seems to agree that is what the language actually
says.
BTW, telling us what C++ says is not really interesting, and only adds
to confusion, since we are talking solely about C here
> -- Gaby