lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
Date
<<Ah... so (paraphrasing) -- if you have two byte size volatile objects,
and they happen to end up adjacent in memory, the compiler is
explicitly forbidden from turning an access to one of them into a
wider access -- because that would be an access to both of them, which
is a *different* side effect. (Certainly that exactly matches the
hardware-centric view of why "volatile" exists.) And the compiler
isn't allowed to change side effects, including causing them when the
source code didn't ask you to cause them.
>>

Right, and as you see that is covered by the language on external effects
in the Ada standard (remember the intent in Ada was to exactly match the
C rules :-)

But one thing in the Ada world that we consider left open is whether a
compiler is free to combine two volatile loads into a single load. Probably
the answer should be no, but the language at least in the Ada standard does
not seem strong enough to say this.
-
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 13:18    [W:0.042 / U:1.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site