From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-265966-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29564 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2010 15:21:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 29551 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2010 15:21:31 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:21:26 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5MFL7Tw012263	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:21:07 -0400
Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [10.16.42.4])	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5MFL64l017515	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:21:07 -0400
Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [127.0.0.1])	by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o5MFLdaY016888;	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:21:39 +0200
Received: (from jakub@localhost)	by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o5MFLcsm016886;	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:21:38 +0200
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:37:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,        Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,        GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [gimple] assignments to volatile
Message-ID: <20100622152138.GT7811@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <4C1F5380.1090107@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTimzBtuWYWnzMkmDyM6Y490EIwQJxaDI_higMvJs@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006211517460.11284@wotan.suse.de> <4C20D40B.30904@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C20D40B.30904@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg02189.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:17:31AM -0400, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>   if (cond)
>     vobj = data;
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> The case of:
> 
>   x = vobj = data;
> 
> is different because the value is being used.  In that case, I have no
> strong opinion.

What about
(void) vobj;
or
(void) (vobj = data);
?  Should that read vobj?

	Jakub