Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A different view of volatile
Message-ID: <7882@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 13 May 88 19:58:02 GMT
References: <178@wyse.wyse.com> <11369@mimsy.UUCP> <1054@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <1054@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>No....volatile is not ill defined, it is machine dependant, which is what
>you would expect it to be.

The semantics of "volatile" are LESS machine dependent than its omission!

>There is no connection between "volatile" and "atomic", "volatile" does not
>imply "semaphore".

This much is true.