From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3DD1DEBA.9040903@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <01974d0bd36314a7c8172b6eca15effe@plan9.bell-labs.com>, <20021113042632.A6338@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:15:56 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1c9f1aec-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Roman V. Shaposhnick wrote:
> The problem with volatile, of course, is that it is just a
 > hint not a directive ( well, at least  that's how I interpret
 > C99 Standard ).

I don't see how you can interpret the C standard that way.
Volatile qualification imposes a *requirement* that the
accesses of the abstract C machine model actually be
performed in the generated code.  Details of the access,
such as width, read-modify-write vs. write, etc. must be
documented by the C implementation.