Content originally posted in LPCWare by Brutte on Wed Nov 21 12:55:57 MST 2012 Quote: Don't blame GCC - it is *C*(..) There are hundreds of attributes for this and for that, and about the same count those that are missing.
Quote: You can always join to the GCC's programmers crowd I am not complaining, I was just hoping to inspire someone :)
Content originally posted in LPCWare by graynomad on Tue Nov 20 21:57:21 MST 2012 It does sound like it but I don't think so, volatile means [B]somebody else[/B] may be writing to it, const means [B]you [/B]can't.
Content originally posted in LPCWare by aamir ali on Tue Nov 20 21:53:29 MST 2012 1. volatile & const together for register. isn't it contradictory for each other.
2. __o is volatile & have read only permission __IO is also volatile & have both read/write permissions.
As both are volatile so that means both should have same permission I guess read/write both.
Content originally posted in LPCWare by fjrg76 on Tue Nov 20 19:56:14 MST 2012 Quote: Brutte It would be nice if GCC had the true __O attribute (and not "pretending __IO"):
tmp = FEED;
so that the code produced warning.
You can always join to the GCC's programmers crowd
Content originally posted in LPCWare by TheFallGuy on Tue Nov 20 08:25:59 MST 2012 Don't blame GCC - it is *C* that does not have the concept of write-only variables.
Content originally posted in LPCWare by Brutte on Tue Nov 20 07:32:27 MST 2012 It would be nice if GCC had the true __O attribute (and not "pretending __IO"):