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

[Weddington, E. <Eri...@at...>]

 

> -----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.