Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

mike stump (
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:53:37 -0800 (PST)

> From:
> To:,,
> Cc:,,,
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:13:43 -0500 (EST)

> Yes, of course! No one disagrees. I am talking about *LOADS* not
> stores, your example is 100% irrelevant to my point, since it does
> stores.

Ok, in the bodies of those, put in




With new definitions for j1, j2 and k3 as being volatile. Accesses are volatile:

[#2] Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object,
modifying a file, or calling a function that does any of
those operations are all side effects

So, I would claim that the case is symetric with writing volatiles.
If the standard doesn't make a distinction for write v read, then you
can't and claim that distinction is based in the standard. If you
claim the standard does make a distinction, please point it out, I am
unaware of it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at