Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

From: 'jtv' (jtv@xs4all.nl)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 06:44:53 EST


On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:44:59AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>
> NO; the standard here is clear: any access to a volatile object is a side
> effect (see , and optimization is NOT allowed to eliminate side effects, and
> must do them respecting sequence points, even if it determines that the code
> will in fact do nothing

Thank you. That makes it absolutely clear.

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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:22 EST