On 09/18/2017 06:19 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
member is taken, this does not constitute an access to the object as a
whole.
That is, in the following code:
#include
struct S {
_Atomic int a;
int b;
};
int
load_a (st
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 15:36 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 03:32 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like
On 09/19/2017 03:32 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
member is taken
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
> >> member is taken, this does not constitute an acces
On 09/18/2017 10:07 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
member is taken, this does not constitute an access to the object as a
whole.
That is, in the following code:
#include
On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to see the GCC project to document that if the address of a
> member is taken, this does not constitute an access to the object as a
> whole.
>
> That is, in the following code:
>
> #include
>
> struct S {
>_Atomic in
