On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Here, I should obviously admit that the semantics of *(volatile int *)& > > aren't any neater or well-defined in the _language standard_ at all. The > > standard does say (verbatim) "precisely what constitutes as access to > > object of volatile-qualified type is implementation-defined", but GCC > > does help us out here by doing the right thing. > > Where do you get that idea? Try a testcase (experimentally verify). > GCC manual, section 6.1, "When > is a Volatile Object Accessed?" doesn't say anything of the > kind. True, "implementation-defined" as per the C standard _is_ supposed to mean "unspecified behaviour where each implementation documents how the choice is made". So ok, probably GCC isn't "documenting" this implementation-defined behaviour which it is supposed to, but can't really fault them much for this, probably. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
