lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 10 Jan 2002 11:40:57 +0100
FromDavid Weinehall <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:03:42AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:

[snip]

> Of course ordering rules must be obeyed, and side effects cannot be moved
> across sequence points. Thus if the two volatile loads are in separate
> instructions, as in:

[snip]

Sorry, if I'm rude, but is this discussion really going anywhere, and
is it really necessary to have on lkml?! The signal/noise-ratio is low
enough as it is.

Instead of arguing about possible interpretations of the C-standard, why
not do some real C-programming instead...


Regards: David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2008