Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A different view of volatile
Message-ID: <11369@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 88 16:55:21 GMT
References: <178@wyse.wyse.com>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 14

In article <178@wyse.wyse.com> mikew@wyse.wyse.com writes:
>It seems that volatile is ill-defined when combined with operators
>that operate in-place.

More than that, volatile is ill-defined *always*: on a machine
with only halfword load and stores, a fullword `a = 0' is not atomic.

Remember, though, that `ill-defined' does not mean `useless'.  The
following is ill-defined:

	struct rkdevice *rkaddr = (struct rkdevice *)0777440;
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris