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] |
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:23:20AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:That was my thought -- if they haven't worked since 3.0.4, and nobody's screaming, they can't be very useful. But I'm not the most clued-in person about what weird things people do at the margins with GCC and its myriad options.If there's true call for it again, it should be done at the tree level, possibly within the front ends.Yes, now that I think of it, the right way to implement this is to tack a real 'volatile' type qualifier onto the appropriate set of variable decls.
Exactly; it's then just a weird version of C/C++ where things are volatile by default. That will do things the original did not to the type system, though. I'm agreed that this is the right approach; just pointing out that this approach will not behave quite the same as the original. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |