This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Volatile MEMs in statement expressions and functions inlined as trees


Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:

| On 14 Dec 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | So when the C++ standard says
| > |
| > | 	The result has the type of the left side.
| > | 	The result has the value of the value stored.
| > | 	The result is an lvalue.
| > |
| > | these are not mutually incompatible. In particular, that middle part is
| > | _not_ overridden (or made invalid) by the last part.
| >
| > Certainly, since the lvalue has a value which is the value stored.
| 
| Bzzt, you lose.
| 
| Not with volatile memory.

No, for volatile-memory, the implementation has to define what its
means by access.

| Re-loading the value from memory is _not_ the same as "value stored".

The re-loading is a feature of the chain assignment for volatile-memory.

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]