From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-117321-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27160 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2005 21:30:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27145 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2005 21:30:02 -0000
Received: from h-68-164-203-246.nycmny83.covad.net (HELO dberlin.org) (68.164.203.246)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:30:02 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO localhost)
  by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4)
  with ESMTP id 8208982; Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:29:58 -0400
Subject: Re: volatile semantics
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>, Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3slyetpgp.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
References: <851D2CB0-93DF-4C49-A6A8-8895DB1A08F9@apple.com>
	 <42778D99.7070904@codesourcery.com>
	 <b0f8ff9938df57bbfda0ec3aea4fc02b@apple.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507161250120.1478@redshift.mimosa.com>
	 <1121532997.29893.6.camel@linux.site>
	 <m3oe92v5ij.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	 <1121548071.6761.7.camel@linux.site>
	 <m3slyetpgp.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:30:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1121549399.6761.9.camel@linux.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00685.txt.bz2

On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:23 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> | > | There is no point in type qualifiers if they can be simply changed at
> | > | will.  Do not lie about your objects, and you will not be screwed over.
> | > 
> | > only if the language you're implementing the compiler for says so, no
> | > matter what nifty transformation you could have done.
> | > 
> | 
> | Except that nobody seems to agree that is what the language actually
> | says.
> 
> The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard
> offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people
> are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can
> claim they are well-founded to apply  their transformations.

I'm sorry, i have a hard time believing the view of what amounts so far
to 2 people is that of the standard committee.
After all, if the standard is really that unclear, someone could file a
DR and we could get an official answer.

We both know that standards committees are not made up of 1 or 2 people,
and saying "people who designed and wrote the standard offer their view
and interpretation of of they wrote " is not useful when they do not
actually speak for the committee.

--Dan