From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3DD42027.8FFBAB70@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3DD3D463.BE431AC7@arl.army.mil>, <MOBYDICKRjbDt3HvoFO000000ea@mobydick.int.entrisphere.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:50:15 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 214f1326-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Tad Hunt wrote:
> void*
> secmemset(void *buf, int v, int len)
> {
>         return memset((volatile void*)buf, v, len);
> }
> However, isn't GCC going to complain that you're passing
> a volatile to a function that isn't expecting a volatile?

In standard-conforming mode it is *obliged* to issue a
diagnostic.  However, it can (and probably does) still
generate code.  Since this diagnostic would occur only
once (when putting secmemset into some library) it
wouldn't be as big a deal as if it occurred for every
program that used secmemset.