Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:8895 comp.unix.wizards:7571 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!oddjob!gargoyle!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: volatile: is NOT a frill, is increasingly necessary Message-ID: <4268@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 4 Apr 88 23:47:20 GMT References: <12578@brl-adm.ARPA> <1988Mar25.172355.348@utzoo.uucp> <1878@rtech.UUCP> <1988Mar29.162711.12610@utzoo.uucp> <1988Mar30.110820.23882@light.uucp> <1975@winchester.mips.COM> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Followup-To: comp.lang.c Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 15 Keywords: optimizing compilers In article <1975@winchester.mips.COM> mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) writes: >(Cross-posted to unix.wizards: see comments at ned) >In article <1988Mar30.110820.23882@light.uucp> bvs@light.UUCP (Bakul Shah) writes: > a) Our compiler team put in volatile, and until > b) We got volatile to act completely right. [nontrivial] In other words, you implemented 'volatile' to conform with the final definition in the ANSI standard?? What powers of prediction you have!! :-) What are you going to do if volatile doesn't act quite the way you defined it when your compiler team put in volatile?? -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_