1 Oct
2004
1 Oct
'04
9:32 a.m.
Peter Dimov wrote: [...]
write volatile @a 1
nop
read volatile @a x
nop
write volatile @a x-1
nop
exit(x-1)
push 0 call _exit
in the first case, and
Happy now (debugger notwithstanding)?
No. A conforming compiler is not allowed to do that.
I see no reason why. It translated your accesses to a sequence of nop instructions.
C'mon, volatile is brain-dead.
Nobody's arguing otherwise. ;-) But a nop it isn't.
Nop works just fine for your volatile accesses. You can't prove non- conformance without trying to fool the program using debugger (or things like that... beyond the scope of the standard). Innocent until proven guilty, you know. regards, alexander.