> From: dewar@gnat.com
> To: dewar@gnat.com, mrs@windriver.com, paulus@samba.org
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trini@kernel.crashing.org,
> velco@fadata.bg
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:13:43 -0500 (EST)
> Yes, of course! No one disagrees. I am talking about *LOADS* not
> stores, your example is 100% irrelevant to my point, since it does
> stores.
Ok, in the bodies of those, put in
j1=c1;
j2=c2;
j3=c3;
With new definitions for j1, j2 and k3 as being volatile. Accesses are volatile:
[#2] Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object,
modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of
those operations are all side effects
So, I would claim that the case is symetric with writing volatiles.
If the standard doesn't make a distinction for write v read, then you
can't and claim that distinction is based in the standard. If you
claim the standard does make a distinction, please point it out, I am
unaware of it.
-
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 - 21:00:28 EST