Re: access to a volatile variable

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>]

mark@codesourcery.com wrote:

> I'm not sure I like this last bullet point.  If I understand the
> debate, C++ has different semantics than C for this case.  Well, that
> may be "right" or "wrong" but it's also true.  We must implement them.
Yes the semantics are different, yes we must implement them (for conforming
programs).

>     --> A conforming program could not tell the difference anyway. <--
> 
> If this is true, which wouldn't surprise me, why the debate?  If this
> is true, then we can do the "sensible" thing, 
Alexandre disputes this, however the example he gives looks like a
non-conforming program to me.

>but why were we talking about this to start?
http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-bugs/1999-06/msg00468.html et seq, and
http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-patches/1999-06/msg00411.html

I'm sorry to keep burdening the list with this issue, but as the one who
submitted the require_complete_type_in_void patch, I'm responsible and I'd
really like to turn that function into a no-op for the 2.95 release -- it only
performs checks, and those checks are wrong. Of course Jeff has frozen 2.95
now, so it'll have to go via him too.

The patch I provided
(http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-patches/1999-06/msg00411.html) is not a
complete solution and I withdraw it for consideration on the mainline.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: Computer Science Department :: Bristol University
        I have seen the death of PhotoShop -- it is called GIMP
nathan@acm.org  http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/  nathan@cs.bris.ac.uk