------- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 05:09
-------
(In reply to comment #32)
> | I meant that we were mostly concerned about what the standard says about the
> | effect of casting (say) int* into volatile int*, but the other directly is
> | simply undefined.
>
> That is what I do not understand. Could you point me to the relevant
> passage of the C standard?
(my quote above should read "the other *direction* is simply undefined")
Uhm? It's just the passage you quoted earlier:
"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".
>
> | void quux(int *bar) {
> | *(volatile int*)bar = 42;
> | }
> |
> | volatile int foo;
> | quux((int*)&foo);
> |
> | This time there is no "attempt [...] to refer to an object defined with a
> | volatile-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-volatile-qualified
> | type".
>
> Really? What does quux() does to the object defined through foo then?
It refers to it through an lvalue whose type is "volatile int", which *is*
volatile-qualified.
> My understanding is that you have gotten everything backwards.
In what sense?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278
