Follow-up Comment #1, bug #50270 (project avr-libc): Your criticism seems to confuse volatile memory access with volatile asm statements. Given the matter is known to be tricky, it would have been better to subscribe to the avr-libc mailing list, and discuss the wording there with the other developers (including the author of that snippet), rather than immediately declaring it a "bug".
After all, that article has been written for a reason, after certain observations have been analyzed and discussed prior in Internet forums and mailing lists. As it is now, even after re-reading it, the wording and examples of the article still look much more reasonable to me than your blunt statement "it cannot be what is not supposed to be". _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?50270> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev