This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
| gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 17.07.05 in <m3ll46s81y.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>:
|
| > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:05 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| > | >
| > | > [...]
| > | >
| > | > | You make it sound like the standard is crystal clear on this issue,
| > | > and | everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint are just slimeballs
| > | > trying to | get around the clear wording of the standard.
| > | >
| > | > I think you're profondly mistaken in your understanding of what I wrote.
| > |
| > | I read it another few times, and still looks the same to me.
| > |
| > | "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."
| > |
| > |
| > | IE there are those whose opinion is right because "they wrote the
| >
| > see, here is where you added the transmutation.
|
| Well, the more interesting part is the one after "and some". And I agree
| that it certainly reads rather insulting and confrontational - in fact, I
| can't see how else to interpret it.
|
| Can't we keep the personal attacks out of these discussions?
There were but, but it looks like you wanted to inject some.
That is without me.
-- Gaby