[ Your mailer drops Cc: lists, munges headers, does all sorts of badness. Please fix that. ]
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, David Schwartz wrote: > > > There is a quite convincing argument that such an access _is_ an > > access to a volatile object; see GCC PR21568 comment #9. This > > probably isn't the last word on the matter though... > > I find this argument completely convincing and retract the contrary argument > that I've made many times in this forum and others. You learn something new > every day. > > Just in case it wasn't clear: > int i; > *(volatile int *)&i=2; > > In this case, there *is* an access to a volatile object. This is the end > result of the the standard's definition of what it means to apply the > 'volatile int *' cast to '&i' and then apply the '*' operator to the result > and use it as an lvalue. True, see my last mail in this sub-thread that explains precisely this :-) Satyam - 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/
