Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Nathan Sidwell writes: | > Dale Johannesen wrote: | > | > > And we don't have to document the behavior at all; it is not documented | > > now. | > I disagree. It's not documented explicitly in gcc now, because it is doing | > what the std permits, and so documented there. We should document either | > | > a) that current gcc is not breaking the std, and Mike's example is invalid | > code, if one expects a volatile read. This would be a FAQ like thing.
I vote for (a). [...] | This is a bad extension to gcc and will cause much trouble, just like | the old guarantee to preserve empty loops. Hear, hear, hear. -- Gaby
