access to a volatile variable

[mark@codesourcery.com]

>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> writes:

    Nathan> Alexandre Oliva wrote:

    Nathan>For volatile complete T, issue a ped-warn and read the object. Thus
    Nathan> pedantic people will be told that something non-standard
    Nathan> is happening, but the `sensible' semantics happen. The
    Nathan> non-standard behaviour is the lvalue to rvalue decay.

    Nathan> does this sound right?

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.
I'm all for spotting typos in the standard, but I'm not for guessing
what the committee should have done on substantive issues.

    --> 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, but why were we talking
about this to start?

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com