This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?

From: "Paul Smith" <pausmith at nortelnetworks dot com>
To: Jay Monkman <jtm-list-crossgcc at smoothsmoothie dot com>
Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 18 Aug 2004 22:05:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?
References: <20040803153131.GA25085@smoothsmoothie.com>
Reply-to: "Paul Smith" <pausmith at nortelnetworks dot com>

If you don't want the compiler to optimize that variable you have to
declare it to be volatile.  That's what volatile is for...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@nortelnetworks.com>   HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Re: Is this expected gcc behaviour?
  - From: Jay Monkman

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]