Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!njin!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ++i++ in Plain English
Message-ID: <15984@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 26 Apr 91 18:45:26 GMT
References: <B_WAUIB@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991Apr25.174310.21264@kithrup.COM> <1991Apr25.190127.8178@cs.ucla.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 8

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?

Yes, but that's not relevant.  Even accessing a non-volatile could do that.

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

That's the requirement for accesses to volatiles anyway.