This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Does the keyword volatile work?

From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
Cc: "Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2 at cox dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 13 May 2003 11:41:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
References: <3EBFD2E4.2090606@cox.net><20030512173227.GA29256@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> <3EBFDC8C.4000101@cox.net><20030512180548.GC29256@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au><m3smrjvwb6.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><20030513175919.GA13690@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au>

Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:

> On 13-May-2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> > Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
> > 
> > | The wording in the standard prohibits optimizing away accesses to volatile
> > | *objects*, but doesn't say anything about volatile rvalues.
> > 
> > C has no notion of rvalue.
> 
> By "rvalue", I mean any expression which is not an lvalue.

The C standard leaves this (the notion of 'access')
implementation-defined.  It's a bug in GCC that it doesn't define it
(and the space is right there in the documentation for it).
-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>

References:
- Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Stephen P. Smith
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Stephen P. Smith
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Does the keyword volatile work?
  - From: Fergus Henderson

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