Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The world is not ready for 'volatile'
Message-ID: <15171@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 28 Dec 88 17:33:30 GMT
References: <141@bms-at.UUCP> <275@twwells.uucp> <15166@mimsy.UUCP> <9236@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 19

>In article <15166@mimsy.UUCP> I suggested that
>>... ["register"] implies not-volatile and not-aliased; and it does so
>>in a way that the compiler can reasonably enforce.

In article <9236@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>No, I reject this claim.

You mean to say that a register could be aliased?  Not in C!  How
about a volatile register?  It is a possibility, but it seems entirely
unnecessary.

>A STORAGE CLASS by no means obviates the need for type qualifiers.

I did not say that.  I said `register implies not-volatile, not-
aliased': that `volatile register' and `aliased register' are
nonsensical combinations.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris