Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

[mike stump]

> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>         [e-mail]
> 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

j1=c1;

j2=c2;

j3=c3;

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.