On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Uecker, Martin wrote: > I should have taken the new warning for > > _Atomic int y; > y; // warning statement with no effect > > as a tell-tale sign that something is wrong, > although I still think the warning would be > correct. Or has a atomic load some special > semantics which imply that it can't be > removed?
The warning is logically correct for an atomic load (even if in some cases it's built on primitives that require write access and don't work for a load from read-only memory). > C: Fix atomic loads. [PR97981] > > To handle atomic loads correctly, we need to move the code > top qualifiers in lvalue conversion after > the code that > handles atomics. The patch is OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
