lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 05:28:32PM -0500, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
> You're not allowed to be that smart wrt volatile. If the programmer
> says the value might change unpredictably and should not be optimized,
> then It Is So and the compiler must respect that even if it determines
> It Cannot Possibly Happen.

Naturally I hope you're right. But how does that follow from the Standard?
I have to admit I don't have a copy handy. :(

Let's say we have this simplified version of the problem:

int a = 3;
{
volatile int b = 10;
a += b;
}

Is there really language in the Standard preventing the compiler from
constant-folding this code to "int a = 13;"?


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 13:15    [W:0.108 / U:29.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site