Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> object volatile).
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your point. given
>> void Foo (char const * a) { *(char *)a = 5; }
>> the compiler generates code to store 5 through the pointer 'a'. It
>> doesn't turn
>> this into a call to 'abort', because it thinks you're writing to const
>> storage.
>
>
> Is this *always* the cast, or just in the example above?
I thought we were discussing the case where there is no static information about
what the pointer actually points to. I.e. the case of an incoming pointer
parameter of a function that is not being inlined (or equivalent).
> It appears he was saying that *even if it could determine the static
> type*, the volatile qualifier on the cast *made the object not that type
> anymore*. And i'm not sure why such a thing would apply only to
> volatile, if true.
I could not determine whether that was the case of Hugh Redelmeier's argument --
the example is an incomping pointer parameter.
I agree with you, Daniel, that if the static object can be determined, then its
type qualifiers win.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
