[Bug c/109553] Atomic operations vs const locations

2023-04-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/109553] Atomic operations vs const locations

2023-04-19 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Note I disagree with load_uint32_t having a warning. the pointer might be > have a const qualifier on it does not mean the location is const overall. And the doc di

[Bug c/109553] Atomic operations vs const locations

2023-04-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note I disagree with load_uint32_t having a warning. the pointer might be have a const qualifier on it does not mean the location is const overall.

[Bug c/109553] Atomic operations vs const locations

2023-04-19 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Wi

[Bug c/109553] Atomic operations vs const locations

2023-04-19 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr