Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!nis!quad!dts
From: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: volatile required?
Message-ID: <299@quad.uucp>
Date: 4 Oct 89 09:17:22 GMT
References: <712@Aragorn.dde.dk> <16785@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <756@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Organization: Quadric Systems, Richfield MN
Lines: 17

In article <756@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
:In article <16785@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) writes:
:|  NO. This is a convenient type of oversight that allows so called
:|  "optimizing compilers" like Turbo C and Microsoft C to squeeze
:|  out extra performance from benchmarks.
:
:  I wrote a reply saying that MSC v4.85 and later didn't do this.
:Someone replied that if certainly did, if you use the -Oa option.

For the record, MSC 5.1 produces the correct results from the
original program snippet (4) even when compiling with either
the -Oa or the -Ox switch.

-- 
                                  David Sandberg - Quadric Systems
 "I began neglecting my shoes."   PSEUDO: dts@quad.uucp
                                  ACTUAL: ..uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts