Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:10592 comp.arch:5075 Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch Subject: Re: volatile (in comp.lang.c) Message-ID: <4922@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 2 Jun 88 01:17:15 GMT Article-I.D.: ihlpf.4922 References: <20345@pyramid.pyramid.com> <833@mcdsun.UUCP> <1988May23.003847.1114@utzoo.uucp> <1078@micomvax.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Followup-To: comp.lang.c Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 22 In article <1078@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: |In article <1988May23.003847.1114@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes: |>Unfortunately, this is not sufficient. "Volatile" does not guarantee |>that operations are atomic. It is entirely possible for x and/or y to |>contain trash because they caught the variable midway through the |>assignment. |Fortunately this is sufficient when the programmer understands what he is |programming, and chooses data types etc which will ensure atomicity, if that |is what he is trying to achieve. C itself does not guarantee that access to any particular data type, including char, is atomic. My question is: is there *any* use for 'volatile' which does not require 'atomicity' at some level? If not, then 'volatile' doesn't really fix any of the problems we have without it. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) You are in a little twisting maze of / / _ , __o ____ email paths, all different. / (_