| |||||||||||||
Betrayed by a bitfieldBetrayed by a bitfieldPosted Feb 7, 2012 0:52 UTC (Tue) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432)In reply to: Betrayed by a bitfield by giraffedata Parent article: Betrayed by a bitfield
Again, this is implementation-defined behavior. The standard you're looking for is the ABI for your target. That's where all the memory layout, access size, calling convention and other low-level stuff is specified.
Volatile is perfectly fine for I/O as long as you know the address being accessed is suitably aligned to avoid problems, as the ABI should indicate.
This is why volatile is non-portable. Unfortunately, C99 has no standard way to force alignment of any object.
(Log in to post comments)
Betrayed by a bitfield Posted Feb 7, 2012 8:46 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is why volatile is non-portable. Unfortunately, C99 has no standard way to force alignment of any object. GCC, MSCV and other compilers include such an ability and C11 finally adds it to standard so it's all is not so bad...
|
|||||||||||||