volatile semantics

[Geoff Keating]

On 22/07/2005, at 7:57 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> There is a "semantics of access".  It is implementation-defined.

I think you're thinking of "what constitutes an access", which is  
implementation-defined, but is not the same of the semantics of an  
access.

> The standard describes things like side effect and such in terms of  
> *access*.

That's true, but this actually makes the model less useful, not  
more.  There is no requirement on the implementation that it actually  
perform any side effects if they are not needed.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/attachments/20050723/b575377c/attachment.p7s>