lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 8 Jan 2002 12:41:51 +0100
Fromjtv <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:27:34AM +0100, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> >
> >	int a = 3;
> >	{
> >		volatile int b = 10;
> 
>     >>>>>>>>> here b changes

Yes, thank you, that part was obvious already.  The question pertained
to the fact that nobody outside compiler-visible code was being handed
an address for b, and so the compiler could (if it wanted to) prove
under pretty broad assumptions that nobody could *find* b to make the
change in the first place.

Now other people assure me that the Standard explicitly rules this out,
and I'm willing to believe that--although naturally I'd still feel more 
comfortable if I'd actually seen the relevant text.  Just so long as
we're not making another wild-guess stab at solving the problem.


Jeroen

-
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 11:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2008