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: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- 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 13:52:53 -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> <17113.17689.558864.411876@zapata.pink>
> In other words, we're asked to agree that the type of an object
> changes depending on how it is accessed.
> For the benefit of readers, only the first sentence of this para is
> the language of the standard; the rest isn't.
>
> That an object referred to through a volatile pointer must
> "temporarily" be treated as though it were declared volatile is the
> crux of this argument.
Again, you could say the same about const, restrict, or any other
qualifier then, making them more or less useless as qualifiers.