[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.132 / U:6.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site