Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9667 comp.arch:4490
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!mips!mash
From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: volatile (in comp.lang.c)
Message-ID: <2082@winchester.mips.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 88 07:17:50 GMT
References: <20345@pyramid.pyramid.com> <833@mcdsun.UUCP> <9916@tekecs.TEK.COM> <2642@geac.UUCP>
Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 16

In article <2642@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes:
....
>    It is interesting to note that there have not been, to date,
>**any** other discussion of the necessity of "volatile" et all, only
>of their desirability in a given language, taking their necessity as
>**a given**.

This is an assertion of non-fact.  There was such a discussion that
ran for about a week, a month or so ago, at least in comp.lang.c.
People gave examples of potential usage; some of us who have it and use
it said so; I observed that both of our kernels had about 200
instances of volatile, and we'd miss it a lot if it weren't there.
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash  OR  mash@mips.com
DDD:  	408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086