From 8117da65db95b328f0586b183042425c75dde628 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nathan Sidwell Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:42:32 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * extend.texi (Volatiles): Fix typos. From-SVN: r35632 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gcc/extend.texi | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index 42d7dba1827..5d53ed90acd 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2000-08-11 Nathan Sidwell + + * extend.texi (Volatiles): Fix typos. + 2000-08-11 Kazu Hirata * flow.c: Fix formatting. diff --git a/gcc/extend.texi b/gcc/extend.texi index 4a8c87c2d73..7ec85bfdd4d 100644 --- a/gcc/extend.texi +++ b/gcc/extend.texi @@ -3558,13 +3558,13 @@ works correctly. Both the C and C++ standard have the concept of volatile objects. These are normally accessed by pointers and used for accessing hardware. The -standards encourage compilers to refrain from optimizations on +standards encourage compilers to refrain from optimizations concerning accesses to volatile objects that it might perform on non-volatile objects. The C standard leaves it implementation defined as to what constitutes a volatile access. The C++ standard omits to specify this, except to say that C++ should behave in a similar manner to C with respect to volatiles, where possible. The minimum either -standard specifies is that at a sequence point all previous access to +standard specifies is that at a sequence point all previous accesses to volatile objects have stabilized and no subsequent accesses have occurred. Thus an implementation is free to reorder and combine volatile accesses which occur between sequence points, but cannot do so -- 2.30.2