Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!pwcmrd!skipnyc!atpal!tneff
From: tneff@atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: volatile
Message-ID: <120@atpal.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 88 13:15:30 GMT
References: <12578@brl-adm.ARPA> <1988Mar25.172355.348@utzoo.uucp> <588@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <1988Mar29.004454.2867@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: tneff@atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Rational Technologies, Inc.
Lines: 13
Summary: In all fairness, #pragma would probably be OK

In article <1988Mar29.004454.2867@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ... The point is that [OS-type programs where /volatile/ is important]
>are a sufficiently small subset of C applications that the need should be
>addressed with #pragma, rather than by cluttering up the type system with it.

Well, in all fairness I could easily live with #pragma volatile(foo) instead,
*IF* compiler writers actually bothered to code the pragmas when XJ311 "let
them off the hook" by degrading /volatile/ from a required language feature
to a totally elective pragma.  I'm not sure they would, especially if they
were busy trying to figure out /noalias/.  :-)     TMN 
-- 

Tom Neff