From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-117406-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30398 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2005 12:24:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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
Received: (qmail 30379 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2005 12:24:36 -0000
Received: from smtp-101-monday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.nerim.net) (62.4.17.101)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:24:36 +0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186])
	by mallaury.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B554F3CC;
	Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j6ICN8pI002318;
	Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:08 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j6ICN8NS002317;
	Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:08 +0200
To: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>,
        "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: volatile semantics
References: <BF0108CF.ADCA%schlie@comcast.net>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <BF0108CF.ADCA%schlie@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:24:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m31x5wfglw.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00770.txt.bz2

Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:


[...]

| > | 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")
| > 
| > I don't understand what you mean here.  Are you seriously suggesting
| > that 
| > 
| >      int main(void) {
| >         const int x = 4;
| >         *(int*)&x = 3;
| >      }
| > 
| > is well-defined?
| 
| Actually yes, I believe it's well defined that:


       [#5] If an attempt is made to modify an object defined  with
       a  const-qualified  type  through use of an lvalue with non-
       const-qualified type, the  behavior  is  undefined.   If  an
       attempt  is  made  to  refer  to  an  object  defined with a
       volatile-qualified type through use of an lvalue  with  non-
       volatile-qualified type, the behavior is undefined.113)

-- Gaby