On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:46 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@axis.com> wrote: > > > From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:00:22 +0200 > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:03 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > We say very little about reads and writes to aggregate / > > > compound objects, just scalar objects (i.e. assignments don't > > > cause reads). Let's lets say something safe about aggregate > > > objects, but only for those that are the same size as a scalar > > > type. > > > > > > There's an equal-sounding section (Volatiles) in extend.texi, > > > but this seems a more appropriate place, as specifying the > > > behavior of a standard qualifier. > > > > Hmm, might be true only up to word-mode size, not, say, __int128_t. > > I'm not saying a *single* read or write, I'm saying exactly as > (many as) would happen for the integer type. > > > Also very likely only in case the object has the same alignment > > as the naturally aligned integer type. > > Again, just as needed for the integer type. > > So WDYT about Martin Sebor's suggestion?
That sounds good. Thanks, Richard. > brgds, H-P
