From: John Regehr <regehr@cs.utah.edu>
To: David Brown <david@westcontrol.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109240906200.14636@gamow.cs.utah.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <j5et0h$gp6$1@dough.gmane.org>
> What can't make sense is a /static/ "volatile const" which is /defined/
> locally, rather than just declared.
The code in question sounds well-defined (but probably poor style) to me.
It is never OK to access a qualified object through an unqualified
pointer, but my understanding is that accessing an unqualified object
through a qualified pointer is well-defined and that the usual qualifier
rules apply to that access.
David, is your "can't make sense" backed up by a standard? There is no
"lying to the compiler", there is only conforming and non-conforming code.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-24 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-20 16:08 Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-20 16:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-09-21 7:07 ` David Brown
2011-09-21 8:22 ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-21 10:20 ` David Brown
2011-09-21 13:57 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-09-21 14:25 ` David Brown
2011-09-21 14:57 ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-22 8:39 ` David Brown
2011-09-22 21:15 ` Richard Guenther
2011-09-23 11:33 ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-23 11:51 ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-23 13:17 ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-09-21 18:51 ` Georg-Johann Lay
2011-09-22 8:53 ` David Brown
2011-09-24 15:10 ` John Regehr [this message]
2011-09-24 15:49 ` David Brown
2011-09-24 16:26 ` David Brown
2011-09-24 19:38 ` John Regehr
2011-09-25 13:03 ` David Brown
2011-09-25 15:15 ` Andreas Schwab
2011-09-25 16:33 ` David Brown
2011-09-25 16:36 ` David Brown
2011-09-25 16:06 ` Dave Korn
2011-09-25 22:05 ` David Brown
2011-09-25 22:05 ` David Brown
2011-09-26 7:14 ` Miles Bader
2011-09-26 8:53 ` David Brown
2011-09-26 8:58 ` David Brown
2011-09-21 8:14 ` Paulo J. Matos
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.00.1109240906200.14636@gamow.cs.utah.edu \
--to=regehr@cs.utah.edu \
--cc=david@westcontrol.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).