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]

Re: volatile keyword

To: paule at martex dot gen dot oh dot us
Subject: Re: volatile keyword
From: Keith Wright <kwright at gis dot net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 15:27:18 -0400
CC: crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <03a101c0eb46$36a51340$ccc8c8c8@pippin>

> From: "Paul Evans" <paule@martex.gen.oh.us>
> 
> *(CONST1 + CONST2) = (unsigned char)7;
> 
> where CONS* are #define'd literal addresses.
> 
> I would have thought that GCC may optimize
> this operation away at higher optimization
> levels, as there's no way to specify a volatile
> keyword. Am I right or Wrong?

I do this:

#define SIM_register_byte(x) ((volatile byte *)(MBARx+x))
#define ICR12 SIM_register_byte(0x001F)

*ICR12 = 0x00;

is that the question?

-- 
     -- Keith Wright  <kwright@free-comp-shop.com>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---

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

References:
- volatile keyword
  - From: Paul Evans

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