From d92fe3e03f4db0125d343d785d7d323fb1ddade6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wilson Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:19:16 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Delete obsolete doc pointed out by Chris Lattner. * doc/interface.texi (longjmp and automatic variables): Delete paragraph recommending taking the address of a variable. git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@84160 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gcc/doc/interface.texi | 14 -------------- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index 9c65170f8bc..9f2d1c1bc56 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2004-07-06 James E Wilson + + * doc/interface.texi (longjmp and automatic variables): Delete + paragraph recommending taking the address of a variable. + 2004-07-06 Nathan Sidwell * vec.h (VEC_embedded_alloc): Remove. diff --git a/gcc/doc/interface.texi b/gcc/doc/interface.texi index b55293d863c..f6fdc329e10 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/interface.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/interface.texi @@ -69,17 +69,3 @@ values after a @code{longjmp}. And this is all GCC promises to do, because it is very difficult to restore register variables correctly, and one of GCC's features is that it can put variables in registers without your asking it to. - -If you want a variable to be unaltered by @code{longjmp}, and you don't -want to write @code{volatile} because old C compilers don't accept it, -just take the address of the variable. If a variable's address is ever -taken, even if just to compute it and ignore it, then the variable cannot -go in a register: - -@smallexample -@{ - int careful; - &careful; - @dots{} -@} -@end smallexample -- 2.11.0