From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Florian Weimer <Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: simplify_subreg issues
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:27:00 -0000
Message-id: <tg8ziyxd3z.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
References: <20010611190907Y.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <200106120256.TAA04600@geoffk.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00651.html

Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:

> The underlying problem is that 'volatile' doesn't make sense in
> conjunction with 'complex'.  

Why do you think so?

> We can't do complex loads or stores.

The volatile qualifier has not much to do with atomicity of access, at
least according to the C standard.  For example, the C standard
requires that accesses to volatile objects are not reordered accross
sequence points.

-- 
Florian Weimer 	                  Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/
RUS-CERT                          +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898