From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21840 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2005 10:11:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21822 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2005 10:11:20 -0000 Received: from mta07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mta07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:11:20 +0000 Received: from aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mta07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20050717101114.YFIJ481.mta07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:11:14 +0100 Received: from zapata.pink ([82.16.12.40]) by aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20050717101114.RUGV26372.aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@zapata.pink> for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:11:14 +0100 Received: from zapata.pink (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6HACCR6013830; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:12:13 +0100 Received: (from aph@localhost) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j6HACCSm013827; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:12:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17114.12027.56638.173899@zapata.pink> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: volatile semantics In-Reply-To: References: <851D2CB0-93DF-4C49-A6A8-8895DB1A08F9@apple.com> <42778D99.7070904@codesourcery.com> <1121532997.29893.6.camel@linux.site> <1121548071.6761.7.camel@linux.site> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00715.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > Daniel Berlin 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. If "people who designed and wrote the standard" meant to say something, perhaps they should have said so explicitly. But that's very hard to do with volatile, since its definition necessarily falls outside the "as if" semantics of the language. You know, the more this goes on the more I believe we should send X3J11 a request for clarification. Perhaps X3J11 has been disbanded, so there may be problems. But we should ask. Andrew.