Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!rex!ames!eos!shelby!neon!Kermit.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: unexpected CPU behavior [was 486 bugs -- it's in there!]
Message-ID: <1990May30.230943.7020@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 30 May 90 23:09:43 GMT
References: <1431@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <1990May27.110726.17007@xavax.com> <16744@haddock.ima.isc.com> <2159@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> <1429@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <25336@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 10

In article <1431@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>,
dswartz@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> Keep in mind most of the places that had this problem with
> the 68000 had it ~7-10 years ago.  At this point in time,
> few if any C compilers had the volatile keyword.

Yes, like cfront 2.0.

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu