* Paul Koning:
>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The problem is that “reading” is either not defined, or the existing
>> flatly contradicts existing practice.
>>
>> For example, if p is a pointer to a struct, will the expression &p->m
>> read *p?
>
> Presumably
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> ...
> The problem is that “reading” is either not defined, or the existing
> flatly contradicts existing practice.
>
> For example, if p is a pointer to a struct, will the expression &p->m
> read *p?
Presumably the offset of m is substan
* Andrew Haley:
> "volatile" doesn't really mean very much, formally speaking. Sure, the
> standard says "accesses to volatile objects are evaluated
> strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine," but nowhere
> is it specified exactly what constitutes an access.
Reading or modifying
On 27/03/16 06:57, Michael Clark wrote:
> GCC, Clang folk, any ideas on why there is a stack spill for a
> volatile register argument passed in esi? Does volatile force the
> argument to have storage allocated on the stack? Is this a corner
> case in the C standard? This argument in the x86_64 cal
Seems I had misused volatile. I removed ‘volatile’ from the function argument
on test_0 and it prevented the spill through the stack.
I added volatile because I was trying to avoid the compiler optimising away the
call to test_0 (as it has no side effects) but it appeared that volatile was
unne
