Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: volatile in struct member |
| Date | 2016-09-30 22:24 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87a8ep6py2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <dc811de3-cad5-4f57-b68d-dd8b0252e507@googlegroups.com> <aa598ef6-1a14-443d-b1f7-50a20cecef0c@googlegroups.com> <87ponl8pxf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87wphtt7q2.fsf@gmail.com> |
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> But I suspect the question is more about the placement of the keyword.
>> I'd put the volatile on the object declaration:
>>
>> struct small { int i; };
>> volatile struct small sm;
>
> But one could easily imagine a struct like
>
> struct register
> {
> volatile int * address;
> int last_written_value;
> }
I don't think anyone has been questioning the validity of pointing to
volatile data.
> void write_reg(struct register*reg,int val)
> {
> *reg->address = val;
> last_written_value = val;
> }
>
> int read_reg(struct register*reg,int val)
> {
> return reg->last_written_value;
> }
>
> I wouldn't need to have the cached value marked as volatile (though in a
> trivial example like this it would make little difference to performance).
>
> I've programmed FPGAs with "write only" registers like this.
I think I'm missing your point. The fact that you are writing
hypothetically ("I wouldn't need") makes it particularly tricky (for me,
at least).
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
volatile in struct member Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 04:52 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-30 05:50 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 14:42 +0100
Re: volatile in struct member Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 22:09 +0100
Re: volatile in struct member Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 22:24 +0100
Re: volatile in struct member Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 14:29 +0100
Re: volatile in struct member David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-30 16:22 +0200
Re: volatile in struct member Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 15:51 +0100
Re: volatile in struct member David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-30 17:07 +0200
Re: volatile in struct member Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-08 15:48 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-30 15:36 +0200
Re: volatile in struct member Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 06:47 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-30 12:53 -0400
Re: volatile in struct member supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 10:18 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-09-30 20:57 +0000
Re: volatile in struct member supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 14:46 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:22 -0700
Re: volatile in struct member jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-09-30 14:08 -0700
csiph-web