On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 06/10/2011 10:03 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > *((volatile int *)&a[0] + 1) > > > > > > It would be correct to fold it to > > > > > > VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<volatile int,a[1]> > > > > No, it wouldn't be correct. It isn't correct to fold it to an array-ref > > that isn't volatile. > > Hmm? The C expression produces a volatile int lvalue referring to the second > element of a, as does the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR. They seem equivalent to me.
no, a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is generally not an lvalue (fold for example would turn the above to (volatile int) a[1]). Richard.
