From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,eadfebfe8e6dd4da,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Pragma Inspection_Point and Caching Date: 2000/02/16 Message-ID: <88dfak$kjm$1@epimetheus.cswireless.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 588511818 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheBeam.net X-Trace: epimetheus.cswireless.net 950681748 21110 209.250.225.153 (16 Feb 2000 06:15:48 GMT) Organization: The Beam Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2000 06:15:48 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-16T06:15:48+00:00 List-Id: An engineer asked me a question today, and I didn't feel I had a particularly good answer, so I'm trolling for another one. Here's the question: Based on the definition of pragma Inspection_Point, does the compiler have any obligation to attempt to defeat caching (assuming the underlying ISA allows some or all of the cache to be flushed), if the debugging system does not have access to the cache? I mumbled something about "even the ARM has limits to its scope, and caching is outside it," but given the discussion in the Annex and in the Rationale, this didn't seem to satisfy her (or me).