From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-09-01 21:18:24
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:53:30PM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> many thanks, that explains a lot :) now i'm curious though that gcc generates
> working code for some combinations that should not work according to your
> explaination - and doesnt even throw a warning (at -Wall -W)... mmmh :)
> should i try --ansi --pedantic too? :=P
What do you mean with "some combinations that should not work"? At least in a
declaration, all combinations are supposed to work.
> cc65 ignores both const and volatile though right?
No, const is honoured while volatile is parsed correctly but ignored by the
backend. But since the 6502 doesn't have any registers where values can be
kept, with the current compiler design, this doesn't have any real effects for
99.9% of the code.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-09-01 21:18:37 CEST