[LLVMdev] bug or expected behaviour?

[Carl Norum]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote:

> If this were a problem with an omitted statement involving a normal variable, I'd guess you're missing a volatile qualifier. I'm not 100% sure volatile is a valid qualifier for functions, but try it.

Well, yes, if I change the signature to:

	void test(char * volatile x)

It works, but that's because I'm hamstringing the optimizers.  I don't really see how that has anything to do with the question, though.  If I change the signature to:

        void test(int x)

It works too... what's special about 'char *'?

> If RTOS stands for real time OS, then reading up on volatile would be a really good idea.

I'm familiar with 'volatile' semantics, thanks.

> P.S. Sorry Carl, you're going to receive this twice. I forget to CC the list.

No problem.

-- Carl