From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-266427-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11889 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2010 04:08:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 11828 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2010 04:08:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from VLSI1.ULTRA.NYU.EDU (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:08:21 +0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)	id AA06982; Sat, 26 Jun 10 00:09:12 EDT
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <11006260409.AA06982@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:20:00 -0000
To: mikestump@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [gimple] assignments to volatile
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com, matz@suse.de,        nathan@codesourcery.com, richard.guenther@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <94650BF2-D60F-4508-8A26-FCD575761052@comcast.net>
References: <4C1F5380.1090107@codesourcery.com>    <AANLkTimzBtuWYWnzMkmDyM6Y490EIwQJxaDI_higMvJs@mail.gmail.com>    <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006211517460.11284@wotan.suse.de>    <4C20D40B.30904@codesourcery.com>    <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006221721590.18619@wotan.suse.de>    <4C20D891.5030506@codesourcery.com>    <4C21E361.1040900@codesourcery.com>    <4C220762.2060703@codesourcery.com>    <025B27D1-E620-4BA2-A113-FD28747E2762@comcast.net>    <4C22F307.6010403@codesourcery.com>    <4936DDA8-4C55-4CF8-8CA7-D8B4435863BF@comcast.net>    <4C236C7A.40303@codesourcery.com>    <97293849-2D1F-4DE5-9B35-199E26005768@comcast.net>    <4C2451CA.2020906@codesourcery.com>    <E1CA7E86-EEE4-4EB7-8CAF-0FA59DD694DB@comcast.net>    <4C24F908.90409@codesourcery.com>    <94650BF2-D60F-4508-8A26-FCD575761052@comcast.net>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg02650.txt.bz2

> I honestly don't know if people want to deviate from the standard, and if
> so, why, or if they just have a different idea of what it says, or why
> they think it says what they think.

Implementing a standard precisely is good.  Doing what users expect is
also good.  When those two conflict, we have to choose which to do.
The former is USUALLY the right choice, but not always.  It depends on
the level of ambiguity in the standard and the historical legimacy of
the expectation.