c-semantics AT lists.cs.illinois.edu
Subject: C Semantics in K Framework
List archive
- From: John Regehr <regehr AT cs.utah.edu>
- To: c-semantics AT cs.illinois.edu
- Subject: Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:49:54 -0600
- List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/c-semantics>
- List-id: C Semantics in K Framework <c-semantics.cs.illinois.edu>
I'm wondering since there is that sentence "What constitutes an access
to an object that has volatile-qualified type is
implementation-defined."
I should add that I do not know of any C implementations that take meaningful advantage of the freedom that this sentence appears to offer.
Such a compiler would likely be useless for embedded systems and operating systems.
John
- [C-Semantics] volatiles, Chucky Ellison, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Chucky Ellison, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Chucky Ellison, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Chucky Ellison, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, Derek M Jones, 06/23/2011
- Re: [C-Semantics] volatiles, John Regehr, 06/23/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.