From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-170358-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11409 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2011 07:41:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 11300 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2011 07:41:30 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:41:15 +0000
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <gcc@m.gmane.org>)	id 1R85oN-0006YO-F6	for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:41:11 +0200
Received: from 79.161.10.130 ([79.161.10.130])        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:41:11 +0200
Received: from david by 79.161.10.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:41:11 +0200
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
From: David Brown <david@westcontrol.com>
Subject: Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:58:00 -0000
Message-ID: <4E802BB4.1030906@westcontrol.com>
References: <j5adnq$bb4$1@dough.gmane.org>	<mcrr53bcgte.fsf@coign.corp.google.com> <j5c2db$mp0$1@dough.gmane.org>	<j5c6qa$jcm$1@dough.gmane.org> <j5cdok$3ol$1@dough.gmane.org>	<mcraa9y80cj.fsf@coign.corp.google.com> <j5cs3g$aep$1@dough.gmane.org>	<4E7A3209.10508@gjlay.de> <j5et0h$gp6$1@dough.gmane.org>	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1109240906200.14636@gamow.cs.utah.edu>	<4E7DFB31.9010906@westcontrol.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1109241018020.15786@gamow.cs.utah.edu>	<j5n8km$7cc$1@dough.gmane.org> <4E7F4575.1030308@gmail.com>	<4E7F57E2.7000204@hesbynett.no> <87k48wxhnq.fsf@catnip.gol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
In-Reply-To: <87k48wxhnq.fsf@catnip.gol.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20110926085800.WZCTV3hhGA336KkfxocAv5zsKKDZHgBnoaRlL-_qtyM@z>

On 26/09/2011 02:37, Miles Bader wrote:
> David Brown<david.brown@hesbynett.no>  writes:
>> So what advantages would there be in declaring a volatile buffer like
>> this to be "const"?  At best, you are helping the compiler check that
>> you don't accidentally write to it in your own code.
>
> That's actually pretty handy tho...
>

Oh, I'm all in favour of static error checking - use const pointers 
where possible, and there are not many of gcc's warning flags that I 
don't use.  But I'd weigh code clarity above error checking in this 
case, especially since it is very unlikely that you'd write code that 
accidentally wrote to the buffer.