volatile semantics

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:

> This is part of what I meant by saying that your model isn't a match
> for the model in the standard.  Your model had semantics attached to
> the access.

Despite evident appearances, I wasn't trying to make an argument from
the standard.  I was trying to describe the way I think people expect
gcc to behave, and the way I think gcc should behave.  If I had been
trying to make an argument from the standard, I would have provided
citations for my description of volatile.  I'm only moderately
interested in arguments about the standard.  I'm quite a bit more
interested in arguments about what gcc should do.

Nevertheless, I note that my pragmatic view appears to agree with the
standard-based one D. Hugh Redelmeier passed on from Henry Spencer
here:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00664.html

So I feel fairly comfortable with my position.

Ian