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).
That doesn't prove anything. Experiments can only disprove
things.
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.
GCC _is_ documenting this, namely in this section 6.1. It doesn't
mention volatile-casted stuff. Draw your own conclusions.
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
