From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:54:15 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <78790ac4507d1cb6b4a3f5b25657befd@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <a2b958c1576da0f1c8efc82c32fc7f0a@quintile.net>
References: <a2b958c1576da0f1c8efc82c32fc7f0a@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] bad in naddr
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0d02bf1e-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Jan 22 16:43:14 EST 2013, steve@quintile.net wrote:
> > looks like you need the address of something that hasn't got one.
> > for example for indirection, array indexing, etc.
>
> Ah, yes, taking the address of a volatile is a no-no it seems.

iirc, it should be allowed by the standard.  but the mind boggles
as to why a version control system would need it.  :-)

- erik