Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Volatile is Necessary Message-ID: <4192@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 30 Mar 88 00:36:34 GMT References: <12578@brl-adm.ARPA> <1988Mar25.172355.348@utzoo.uucp> <8107@sol.ARPA> <580@garth.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 16 In article <580@garth.UUCP> walter@garth.UUCP (Walter Bays) writes: >The 'volatile' keyword would also work for uniprocessor device >drivers. How about setjmp()? Or side effects of functions with >"dangerous" pointers? setjmp() is a function call (in much the same way as fork(), exec(), exit(), etc.) and is not part of the language specification itself (it is not in section 3 of the draft standard). Same is true about side effects of functions of dangerous pointers. 'Volatile', however, IS part of the language specification. I consider it to be a 'frill' because nothing else in the language specification addresses hardware, per se. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_