This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| > | 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.
The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard
offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people
are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can
claim they are well-founded to apply their transformations.
| BTW, telling us what C++ says is not really interesting, and only adds
| to confusion, since we are talking solely about C here
No. The issue pops up in both languages and they share the same
transformation machinery, even if the bug was originally reported only
for C. I would hate to have to go through this again with you, so I
rather make sure that you understand. No confusion added.
-- Gaby