Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!ames!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: volatile, noalias and optimization
Message-ID: <3637@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 88 19:42:48 GMT
References: <20345@pyramid.pyramid.com> <132@atpal.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 11

In article <132@atpal.UUCP> uunet!pwcmrd!skipnyc!atpal!tneff (Tom Neff) writes:
>This is a wonderful feature ... but shouldn't we use
>        #pragma volatile(var1, var2, var3)
>instead of imposing a new keyword on the language grammar?

Unless you expand on this a bit, it's not as powerful.  I've actually used the
declaration "char volatile * volatile p;" (a volatile pointer to volatile
memory) -- would your proposal handle this?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
(In case anyone cares, p was volatile because it was being used by both
branches after a fork(), and *p because it was a shared memory segment.)