------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-06-13 11:17
-------
(In reply to comment #0)
> I think that the C standard says C that the "name" of variable
> becomes an rvalue (the actual value) thus requires that the variable
> is accessed.
It actually says that accessing a volatile qualified object through a
nonvolatile
qualified lvalue (as would be the case if referenced via a non-volatile
qualified
cast expression) is implementation defined.
Personally, it seems more consistent to abide by the semantics specified
by a programmer's explicit cast expression, thereby if given:
int x, y;
const int *z;
x = (volatile int)y; // specifies a reference to a volatile int object.
z = &(const int)x; // specifies a reference to a const int object.
And correspondingly:
int x;
volatile int y;
const int z;
x = (int)y; // cast's away volatile (therefore may be optimized away),
// therefore if not desired, shouldn't be "cast away".
(int)z = x; // cast's away const (although may generate a run-time
// exception if referencing a READONLY allocated object),
// therefore if not desired, shouldn't be "cast away".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22000
