I blogged about problems with volatile in Chttp://kristerw.blogspot.se/2016/04/why-volatile-is-hard-to-specify-and.html …
-
-
Replying to @kwalfridsson
@kwalfridsson Great. But "[...] this is not a valid transformation unless all accesses are non-volatile" is wrong b/c x is not volatile.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@kwalfridsson And also, even if marked "volatile", the compiler allocated it and knows it got put in non-volatile storage (registers).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____ That depends on the definition of "access" :) And I (as a compiler developer) think that the compiler should optimize it :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kwalfridsson
@BRIAN_____ But C99 rationale 6.7.3 indicates the C committee expect it to work with the text starting:1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kwalfridsson
@BRIAN_____ "If it is necessary to access a non-volatile object using volatile semantics, the technique is to cast the address of the [...]2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@kwalfridsson I do admit that my interpretation is the one that no C programmer (that isn't a compiler writer) seems to want.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.