From: John M. <ato...@gm...> - 2010-11-09 23:47:01
|
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". |