Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:35 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
| > Daniel Berlin wrote:
| > >>> object volatile).
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> I don't understand your point. given
| > >> void Foo (char const * a) { *(char *)a = 5; }
| > >> the compiler generates code to store 5 through the pointer 'a'. It
| > >> doesn't turn
| > >> this into a call to 'abort', because it thinks you're writing to const
| > >> storage.
| > >
| > >
| > > Is this *always* the cast, or just in the example above?
| >
| > I thought we were discussing the case where there is no static information
about
| > what the pointer actually points to. I.e. the case of an incoming pointer
| > parameter of a function that is not being inlined (or equivalent).
|
| If so, i have no problem, but then you end up with people claiming we
| shouldn't know info we actually do, etc.
I find that fuzzy formulation of the issue rather quite disturbing.
Nobody is claiming you should not know what you know. What people
claim is under which circumstances you can apply transformations based
on the information you know, i.e. when those transformations are valid.
You don't make people happier by transmutating their programs into
faster executable with (what they think) wrong semantics where there is no
way you can clearly and unambiguously justify those transformations.
-- Gaby
