From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21024 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2005 20:21:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 21017 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2005 20:21:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:21:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B9448CFBC; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15647-01-3; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [205.232.38.34] (bronx.gnat.com [205.232.38.34]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFAC48CF98; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:21:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <438B66AC.8050308@gnat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:21:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!) References: <200511281741.jASHf9Bc001892@earth.phy.uc.edu> <438B568E.7010708@adacore.com> <1DDF11FA-C6F6-4B17-817C-33DC1EAAE47A@apple.com> <438B6207.9040209@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg01291.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | I do agree that if > | > | a) everyone agrees on what the "sensible" definition is > > We do have a standard definied beahviour. in one case, and of course we must adhere to this, but not in the other case > > | b) the optimization is not valuable > > for those people who don't care about the standard semantics, there is > always an option to provide a compiler switch. I am talking only about the undefined case