...with the semantics that such accesses should work as-if the underlying
object
had a volatile-qualified type.
Some GCC users (notably the Linux kernel) already depend on this behaviour;
however since GCC never actually supported it their expectations keep breaking
(see for example PR21568, PR22278, PR29753).
I am not requesting that GCC implement any other semantics that people
expect from volatile; only that GCC treat
int x;
... *(volatile int *)&x ...;
as if it read
volatile int x;
... x ...;
===
Please consider,
Segher
--
Summary: adopt accesses through a volatile-casted pointer as a
GNU C extension
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: segher at kernel dot crashing dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
