Article View: comp.std.c
Article #1934Re: A question on volatile accesses
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 1990 05:07
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 1990 05:07
18 lines
1017 bytes
1017 bytes
In article <2388@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@lupine.ncd.com (Ron Guilmette) writes: > volatile int *ip; > i = *++ip; >In other words, could the program above legally be treated as: > volatile int *ip; > i = *ip; > ++ip; "volatile" has nothing to do with this. The above rewrite would be incorrect in any case. Better would be volatile int *ip; i = ip[1]; ++ip; The only places in the code where side effects are required to be brought up to date (synchronized) are at sequence points, such as at the end of the assignment statement in the original code.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14327@smoke.brl.mil>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<2388@lupine.NCD.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: A question on volatile accesses Message-ID: <14327@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 4 Nov 90 05:07:01 GMT References: <2388@lupine.NCD.COM> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 18