From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13780 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2010 13:08:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 13769 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2010 13:08:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:08:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 29204 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2010 13:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.6.14.179?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Jun 2010 13:08:50 -0000 Message-ID: <4C220762.2060703@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:05:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Sidwell CC: Michael Matz , Richard Guenther , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [gimple] assignments to volatile References: <4C1F5380.1090107@codesourcery.com> <4C20D40B.30904@codesourcery.com> <4C20D891.5030506@codesourcery.com> <4C21E361.1040900@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4C21E361.1040900@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg02333.txt.bz2 Nathan Sidwell wrote: > RVCT generated code consistent with my proposal. Specifically in: > some_use_of = volatile_object = value; > the volatile object is only written to and not read, regardless of the > context of that volatile assignment (be it return expression, > conditional expression or serial assignment). Good. >> vobj; >> (void) vobj; > > Both of these cause a read of vobj in RVCT (and GCC). Good. If there are no objections within the next 48 hours, then I think we should consider the semantics settled. I'm not trying to squash discussion; if people don't like those semantics, let's discuss. But, I think existing practice should weigh heavily. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713