This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:23 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 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.
I'm sorry, i have a hard time believing the view of what amounts so far
to 2 people is that of the standard committee.
After all, if the standard is really that unclear, someone could file a
DR and we could get an official answer.
We both know that standards committees are not made up of 1 or 2 people,
and saying "people who designed and wrote the standard offer their view
and interpretation of of they wrote " is not useful when they do not
actually speak for the committee.
--Dan