From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: volatile vs volatile_components
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2008-11-06T08:23:48-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <245585ba-bb49-489f-a8f9-d9579ef7a8fc@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: qbmc3i8uqghm$.1e0pjfirvyxdv.dlg@40tude.net
On Nov 6, 1:25 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> Packed; cached arrays? I would guess that when the array is volatile, but
> its components are not
That's an impossible situation, by C.6(8): "Finally, if an object is
volatile, then so are all of its subcomponents".
-- Adam
, then subsequent reading two components occupying
> the same memory location can be coalesced into one memory operation. It
> would store things into; say; a register and the components would be
> obtained from there. When the components are volatile the compiler must
> read the memory twice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-06 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-05 15:00 volatile vs volatile_components REH
2008-11-06 1:21 ` Adam Beneschan
2008-11-06 9:25 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-11-06 16:23 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
2008-11-06 10:18 ` Stuart
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox