Follow-up Comment #1, bug #50270 (project avr-libc):
Your criticism seems to confuse volatile memory access with
volatile asm statements. Given the matter is known to be
tricky, it would have been better to subscribe to the
avr-libc mailing list, and discuss the wording there with
the other developers (including the author of that snippet),
rather than immediately declaring it a "bug".
After all, that article has been written for a reason, after
certain observations have been analyzed and discussed prior
in Internet forums and mailing lists.
As it is now, even after re-reading it, the wording and
examples of the article still look much more reasonable to
me than your blunt statement "it cannot be what is not
supposed to be".
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?50270>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.nongnu.org/
_______________________________________________
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
