This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- From: David Weinehall <tao at acc dot umu dot se>
- To: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Cc: "'Paul Koning'" <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, dewar at gnat dot com, mrs at windriver dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:40:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
- References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E419@IIS000>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:03:42AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
[snip]
> Of course ordering rules must be obeyed, and side effects cannot be moved
> across sequence points. Thus if the two volatile loads are in separate
> instructions, as in:
[snip]
Sorry, if I'm rude, but is this discussion really going anywhere, and
is it really necessary to have on lkml?! The signal/noise-ratio is low
enough as it is.
Instead of arguing about possible interpretations of the C-standard, why
not do some real C-programming instead...
Regards: David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </