------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 23:45 ------- (In reply to comment #19)
> How about this? > > int foo; > *(volatile int*) (&foo); > > In other words, why should the compiler bother at all with the qualifiers of > what the pointer "really" points to? Because the standard says so. As Nathan Sidwell explains in the thread linked above, it would be both pretty difficult to define the language extension you want semantically clean, and to implement it in gcc. So nobody tried yet. (Giving a warning would probably be less difficult to implement, unfortunately nobody tried either.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278
