Colin O'Flynn wrote:
Perhaps if the issue comes up again, referring to the ANSI C spec might at least have some authority?
For those that understand the terminology, yes.
... any expression referring to such an object [with volatile-qualified type] shall be evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine...
Not everyone will understand what this means. I have tried to provide an interpretation of this in the context of bob's original post.
(114): A volatile declaration may be used to describe an object corresponding to a memory-mapped input/output port ...
This is actually advice for how to use the volatile storage qualifier and probably got into the specification due to just the confusion we're experiencing now.
Which again sounds exactly as GCC behaved.
YES! Graham. _______________________________________________ AVR-chat mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat
