On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:46:28PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 06/27/2010 03:23 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > The compiler is not totally free to ignore the register keyword. > > Both the C and the C++ standards require that the compiler complain > > when taking the address of a register variable. Other compilers will > > issue a hard error for it. Fixing the code to not declare the > > variable as register would be the correct thing to do. > > No, it would not be the correct thing to do, because of the following. > (This is part of a discussion between me and someone quite smarter than > me, who explained the issue in detail.) > > [snip]
That explanation seems to be written by someone who does not know that taking the address of a register variable is simply not allowed. > OK, long read, but the the conclusion is that "fixing the code to not > declare the variable as register would be the correct thing to do" it > *not* the correct thing to do. The correct thing to do is to ignore the > warning, which is not possible if warnings are turned into errors. And which is not possible if the warning is a hard error in the first place. > You also mentioned that "other compilers will issue a hard error for > it." That sounds rather strange, and I wonder which compilers that > might be; someone should file a bug report against them ;) Well, let's start with gcc; that's quite an important one for Gentoo...
