Matthew Woehlke writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Matthew Woehlke writes: > >> So far no one has successfully answered my original question; how do I > >> suppress these dang warnings? :-) > > > > I did. Maybe you didn't see it, or maybe you didn't like the > > suggestion. > > "Didn't see it"? I just re-read your posts; the only thing I see that > might be a suggestion is "don't use volatile". So if there was something > else, I must apologize, because I'm not finding it. :-) I suggested keeping a non-volatile pointer (to the alloc'd memory) and a volatile pointer to the same memory, and using whichever was appropriate. I still think that's a good idea. The warning from gcc *is* correct: you're casting away volatile. Sure, you might be able to find a way to shut up the warning, but is it not surely better to fix the code instead? Andrew.
