https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Daniel Lundin from comment #5)
> This ought to result in stricter optimizing behavior from gcc, not the other
> way around.
Well, GCC did implement this already. My request was that we sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Lundin ---
The intention of DR 476 (Sebor)
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/summary.htm#dr_476 was a
clarification leading to a volatile lvalue access being a side effect, as
opposed to an access of vola
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.lundin.mail at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from DB ---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-18 14:10 ---
defacto this is already (undocumented) GCC behavior.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33053
