From: Weddington, E. <Eri...@at...> - 2010-11-10 02:30:29
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Myers [mailto:ato...@gm...] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:47 PM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: Borja Ferrer; avr...@li... > Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Load / Store > > > > 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. There is a draft change to the standard that deals with multiple address spaces. The work that has been done in GCC for multiple address spaces conforms to this draft. > 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". Hmm. Ok, so I'm wrong. :-) Most implementations I've seen have a semantic difference between something that is just *read only* and actually placing it in a different address space. If we don't equate the two it might make implementation easier though. |