lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    Date

    > There is a quite convincing argument that such an access _is_ an
    > access to a volatile object; see GCC PR21568 comment #9. This
    > probably isn't the last word on the matter though...

    I find this argument completely convincing and retract the contrary argument
    that I've made many times in this forum and others. You learn something new
    every day.

    Just in case it wasn't clear:
    int i;
    *(volatile int *)&i=2;

    In this case, there *is* an access to a volatile object. This is the end
    result of the the standard's definition of what it means to apply the
    'volatile int *' cast to '&i' and then apply the '*' operator to the result
    and use it as an lvalue.

    C does not define the type of an object by how it is defined but by how it
    is accessed!

    DS


    -
    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: 2007-08-17 00:43    [W:0.021 / U:2.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site