[ Your mailer drops Cc: lists, munges headers,
  does all sorts of badness. Please fix that. ]


On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, David Schwartz wrote:

quoted text
> 
> > There is a quite convincing argument that such an access _is_ an
> > access to a volatile object; see GCC PR21568 comment #9.  This
> > probably isn't the last word on the matter though...
> 
> I find this argument completely convincing and retract the contrary argument
> that I've made many times in this forum and others. You learn something new
> every day.
> 
> Just in case it wasn't clear:
> int i;
> *(volatile int *)&i=2;
> 
> In this case, there *is* an access to a volatile object. This is the end
> result of the the standard's definition of what it means to apply the
> 'volatile int *' cast to '&i' and then apply the '*' operator to the result
> and use it as an lvalue.

True, see my last mail in this sub-thread that explains precisely this :-)


Satyam
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/