------- Comment #9 from joseph dot h dot garvin at gmail dot com 2010-04-12 15:00 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > the former points to an object which might change due to effects outside the > program, the latter implies that the smart pointer itself might change, which > only makes sense if the smart pointer object exists in shared memory (as > opposed to pointing to shared memory)
In this case both are true; I'm building linked lists in shared memory. So it's a volatile pointer to a volatile object. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7614
