Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond
From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: volatile (was Re: ++i++ in Plain English)
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.010152.14922@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 26 Apr 91 01:01:52 GMT
References: <3924@inews.intel.com> <B_WAUIB@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991Apr25.174310.21264@kithrup.COM> <1991Apr25.190127.8178@cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 12

In article <1991Apr25.190127.8178@cs.ucla.edu> jon@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:

>May accessing a volatile cause external (to the program) changes?

Of course; that is the purpose of "volatile."  (Well, half of its purpse :-)

>If so, then it could never be optimized out.

True.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.