Re: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

dewar@gnat.com
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:19:47 -0500 (EST)


<<Yes, thank you, that part was obvious already. The question pertained
to the fact that nobody outside compiler-visible code was being handed
an address for b, and so the compiler could (if it wanted to) prove
under pretty broad assumptions that nobody could *find* b to make the
change in the first place.
>>

Suppose that a hardware emulator is used to change the value of b (IT
knows the address) at the point of:

> >>>>>>>>> here b changes

The reason was precisely to test a different value for b. This should
work if b is volatile. So the compiler's proof is flawed. The whole
point of volatile is that ALL such proofs are forbidden for volatile
objects.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/