Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Load / Store

[John M. <ato...@gm...>]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Weddington, Eric <Eri...@at...
> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Myers [mailto:ato...@gm...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 12:14 PM
> > To: Weddington, Eric
> > Cc: Borja Ferrer; avr...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Load / Store
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't see why it would be inappropriate from the standpoint
> > of a High Level Language or even C.  A linker frees the user
> > from needing to manually place objects and it seems to me
> > having the compiler place const qualified objects in specific
> > areas is no different. I agree that we will still need to
> > support memory space qualifiers.
>
> Then I will say it stronger: It violates the C language standard if you do
> this. None of the current C compilers for the AVR do this, and they are all
> fairly well conforming to the C language standard.
>

I don't believe it does. What part of the standard do you think it violates?
The C language standard doesn't really deal with multiple address spaces so
it can't be an *explicit* violation of the standard. I even see a
superscript text note in the *draft* of the standard that says:
"implementations may place a const object that is not volatile in a
read-only region of storage".