I'm making my own C compiler to try to learn as much details as possible about C. I'm now trying to understand exactly how volatile objects work.
What is confusing is that, every read access in the code must strictly be executed (C11, 6.7.3p7):
An object that has volatile-qualified type may be modified in ways unknown to the implementation or have other unknown side effects. Therefore any expression referring to such an object shall be evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine, as described in 5.1.2.3. Furthermore, at every sequence point the value last stored in the object shall agree with that prescribed by the abstract machine, except as modified by the unknown factors mentioned previously.134) What constitutes an access to an object that has volatile-qualified type is implementation-defined.
Example : in a = volatile_var - volatile_var;, the volatile variable must be read twice and thus the compiler can't optimise to a = 0;
At the same time, the order of evaluation between sequence point is undetermined (C11, 6.5p3):
The grouping of operators and operands is indicated by the syntax. Except as specified later, side effects and value computations of subexpressions are unsequenced.
Example : in b = (c + d) - (e + f) the order in which the additions are evaluated is unspecified as they are unsequenced.
But evaluations of unsequenced objects where this evaluation creates a side effect (with volatile for instance), the behaviour is undefined (C11, 6.5p2):
If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined. If there are multiple allowable orderings of the subexpressions of an expression, the behavior is undefined if such an unsequenced side effect occurs in any of the orderings.
Does this mean the expressions like x = volatile_var - (volatile_var + volatile_var) is undefined ? Should my compiler throw an warning if this occurs ?
I've tried to see what CLANG and GCC do. Neither thow an error nor a warning. The outputed asm shows that the variables are NOT read in the execution order, but left to right instead as show in the asm risc-v asm below :
const int volatile thingy = 0;int main(){ int new_thing = thingy - (thingy + thingy); return new_thing;}main: lui a4,%hi(thingy) lw a0,%lo(thingy)(a4) lw a5,%lo(thingy)(a4) lw a4,%lo(thingy)(a4) add a5,a5,a4 sub a0,a0,a5 retEdit: I am not asking "Why do compilers accept it", I am asking "Is it undefined behavior if we strictly follow the C11 standard". The standard seems to state that it is undefined behaviour, but I need more precision about it to correctly interpret that
