Geoff Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is part of what I meant by saying that your model isn't a match
> for the model in the standard. Your model had semantics attached to
> the access.
Despite evident appearances, I wasn't trying to make an argument from
the standard. I was trying to describe the way I think people expect
gcc to behave, and the way I think gcc should behave. If I had been
trying to make an argument from the standard, I would have provided
citations for my description of volatile. I'm only moderately
interested in arguments about the standard. I'm quite a bit more
interested in arguments about what gcc should do.
Nevertheless, I note that my pragmatic view appears to agree with the
standard-based one D. Hugh Redelmeier passed on from Henry Spencer
here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00664.html
So I feel fairly comfortable with my position.
Ian
