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: Proposal: readable and writable attributes on variables

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Jens Bauer <jens-lists at gpio dot dk>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:23:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Proposal: readable and writable attributes on variables
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20160830142214954662.8dbadc45@gpio.dk> <57C64493.8060408@gmail.com> <20160831125634989192.9bac5b87@gpio.dk> <57C8436A.3090004@gmail.com>

On 09/01/2016 09:04 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:


Understood.  I think a write-only attribute or type qualifier would
make sense.  Until/unless it's implemented I would recommend to work
around its absence by hiding access to the registers behind a read-
only and write-only functional API.

As you noted earlier Martin, if we bake it into the typesystem, then youget the desired warnings when you mix-n-match types. For that reason Isee a type qualifier is superior to an attribute.

IIRC the national labs that were looking at the alignment attributeessentially came to the same conclusion -- bake it into the core of thetypesystem and rely on the typesystem to ensure you don't lose the data.


Jeff

References:
- Re: Proposal: readable and writable attributes on variables
  - From: Martin Sebor

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