From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23505 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2005 20:38:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23489 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jul 2005 20:38:20 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050702203820.23488.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "falk at debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050702164323.22278.olivier.baudron@m4x.org> References: <20050702164323.22278.olivier.baudron@m4x.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/22278] gcc -O2 discards cast to volatile X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 20:38 ------- According to Joseph Myers, the question is whether this counts as "access" to a volatile object, which is implementation defined (6.7.3#6). However, extend.texi doesn't answer this, so I'll reopen it as a documentation problem. We could then either document it does not constitute an access, or change the behavior and state that it does. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Keywords| |documentation Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278