--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-08 09:18
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> In the C99 standard, 6.5.4 Cast Operators, Footnote 85 "A cast does not
> yield an lvalue. Thus, a cast to a qualified type has the same effect
> as a cast to the unqualified versi
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifix dot com 2005-07-08 00:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Casts in folding
*& omitted
gcc2eran at tromer dot org wrote:
> And here is what N1124 [6.3.2.1/1] says:
> "When an object is said to have a particular type, the type is
>
--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-06 18:42
---
Correction of typo in comment 9: the related PR referenced is PR 22278.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-07-03 17:33
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Hey, we should be *happy* that we found a standard-compliance excluse to fix
> the
> code-breaking regression and make those casts work like everybody wanted!
- I couldn't more stron
--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 12:12
---
To make it easier to evaluate my claim, here are all messages in the thread
linked from comment 1 that seemingly contradicy comment 9:
Nathan Sidwell: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00085.html
Dale Johann
--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 06:50
---
> Did you read what was writting in comment #1 and #4?
Carefully. Similarly to Paul Schlie in comment 5, I don't agree. My reasoning
follows.
> Because at this point avail is known not to volatile.
That is
--- Additional Comments From gcc2eran at tromer dot org 2005-07-03 04:55
---
Why was this bug closed? The testcases in comment 5 do *not* pass.
Here's the first testcase, fixed to compile cleanly:
int avail;
int main() {
volatile int **outside = (volatile int**)0x01
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-03
05:52 ---
*outside = &avail;
Because at this point avail is known not to volatile. Did you read what was
writting in comment #1 and
#4?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02
16:48 ---
*** Bug 22278 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21 20:48
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list:
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html
> >
> > -
--- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2005-05-21 18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html
>
> - out of curiosity, it's n
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21 17:31
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html
- out of curiosity, it's not clear that the discussion reached any
conc
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-21
13:50 ---
The only construct I can make gcc deal with mixed (non-)volatile qualifiers
is a union like in
union {
volatile int x;
int y;
} u;
int foo(void)
{
u.y = 0;
return u.x;
}
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14
16:32 ---
This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
