Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:41:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:41:40 -0500 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:5072 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:41:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:40:57 +0100 From: David Weinehall To: Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: "'Paul Koning'" , dewar@gnat.com, mrs@windriver.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix Message-ID: <20020110114056.C5235@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E419@IIS000> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E419@IIS000>; from Dautrevaux@microprocess.com on Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:03:42AM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:03:42AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: [snip] > Of course ordering rules must be obeyed, and side effects cannot be moved > across sequence points. Thus if the two volatile loads are in separate > instructions, as in: [snip] Sorry, if I'm rude, but is this discussion really going anywhere, and is it really necessary to have on lkml?! The signal/noise-ratio is low enough as it is. Instead of arguing about possible interpretations of the C-standard, why not do some real C-programming instead... Regards: David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/