On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Note that "volatile" > > is a type-qualifier, not a type itself, so a cast of the _object_ itself > > to a qualified-type i.e. (volatile int) would not make the access itself > > volatile-qualified. > > There is no such thing as "volatile-qualified access" defined > anywhere; there only is the concept of a "volatile-qualified > *object*". Sure, "volatile-qualified access" was not some standard term I used there. Just something to mean "an access that would make the compiler treat the object at that memory as if it were an object with a volatile-qualified type". Now the second wording *IS* technically correct, but come on, it's 24 words long whereas the original one was 3 -- and hopefully anybody reading the shorter phrase *would* have known anyway what was meant, without having to be pedantic about it :-) Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
