Dale Johannesen wrote:
And we don't have to document the behavior at all; it is not documented now.
I disagree. It's not documented explicitly in gcc now, because it is doing what the std permits, and so documented there. We should document either
a) that current gcc is not breaking the std, and Mike's example is invalid code, if one expects a volatile read. This would be a FAQ like thing.
b) amend the compiler to do a volatile read, and document the extension. This should go in extend.texi
Documentation for (b) is necessary so that programmers can rely on the extension (and understand why some other compiler might not do what they want) _and_ so that gcc maintainers know about it.
nathan
-- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
