volatile semantics

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com> writes:
> 
> | | From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
> | 
> | |  After many exchanges via private mails and
> | | looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become
> | | clear to me that the interpretations offered to justify why GCC is
> | | behaving the way it does seem to go beyond what can be inferred.
> | 
> | OK.
> | 
> | Is there a consensus on this?
> 
> JSM, please chime in.

I'm not entering further into this mess.  I've already stated that the 
documentation should be clarified to make clear which of (effective type, 
declared type, type of lvalue used for access) is being used in GCC's 
definition of access to volatile objects and the code should be changed if 
the decision is to use the type of the lvalue used for the access (which 
would be a simple and natural rule to define).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)