Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!lcc.niket@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
From: lcc.niket@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (Niket K. Patwardhan)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: register variables
Message-ID: <15@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 07:12:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.15
Posted: Fri Jul 19 07:12:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:35:17 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 9

>The semantic meaning of a "register" declaration is NOT that the compiler
>must place the variable in a register.  Instead if you stop to think
>it is really a declaration that this variable is never affected as a
>side effect of an indirect store (* or []), an so a copy of the variable
>in a register can still be believed.  The "register" declaration

I never thought of it that way before, but you are right. Interesting......
using register declarations can make a C program much more provable!!!!
:x