Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!ray
From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: const, volatile, etc [was Re: #defines with parameters]
Keywords: volatile register optimization
Message-ID: <1560@micomvax.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 88 22:55:48 GMT
References: <674@quintus.UUCP> <117@halcdc.UUCP> <468@auspex.UUCP> <9016@smoke.BRL.MIL> <10919@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <1450@micomvax.UUCP> <369@aber-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent QC, Canada
Lines: 30

In article <369@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>In article <1450@micomvax.UUCP> I wrote:
>
>    This is of course not true, the qualifier is an attempt to provide a
>    *solution* to the problem.
>
>It IS the cause! volatile is not necessary, register is sufficient...
>I have tried to give arguments for this (at length :->).
>....etc. etc. etc....

Sigh...

It's not easy to come to a conclusion when each side is discussing totally
different subjects!

I'm talking about 'C', Mr. Grandi appears to be talking about some strange
set of ad hoc rules which are figments of his fertile imagination.

As several people have now said Piercarlo, your conceptions of what 'C'
defines on both this question of "volatile", and of associating signedness
to the word "int" amongst other things, are imaginary.  Please go back and
*absorb* the 'C' spec again, from the ground up.

I hope I have managed to refrained myself from escalating this into a
flamefest....
-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090