Re: volatile semantics

[Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>]

> Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says.
> The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues,
> including volatility, so I think that trying particularly hard to parse its
> words in this area is probably not a good use of time for people trying to
> build a real-world compiler. Creating DRs is more useful than trying to read
> the tea leaves.
>
> Clearly, the analogous rule does not make sense for "const" in that a "const"
> object can never be modified; in particular, if the compiler can prove that
> "*x = 3" is an attempt to modify an object whose dynamic type is "const int",
> then it can replace that with a call to "kill (SIGSEGV)", if it likes; this
> is unquestionably undefined behavior.

With all due respect, unless there is an explicit reference in the standard
to contradict it's clearly stated requirement that an object's qualified
lvalue ("locator value") designates the object being referenced, all
interpretations to the contrary are at best presumptuous, regardless of
whether or not it's generalized behavior may be indeterminate.

(but regardless, at least things are successively approximating "correct")