On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> I should have taken the new warning for
>
> _Atomic int y;
> y; // warning statement with no effect
>
> as a tell-tale sign that something is wrong,
> although I still think the warning would be
> correct. Or has a atomic load some special
> semantics
Hi Joseph,
the patch to drop qualifiers during lvalue conversion
was broken, because the code to emit atomic loads did
not trigger anymore. I now added a test that scans for
"atomic_load".
I should have taken the new warning for
_Atomic int y;
y; // warning statement with no effect
as a tel
