Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!ncar!oddjob!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: volatile: a summary Message-ID: <12020@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 19 Jun 88 07:31:15 GMT References: <11837@mimsy.UUCP> <3811@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <580@wsccs.UUCP> <751@garth.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 23 [a defense of me, deleted] >>Chris is correct when he says that "a perfect compiler >>would not need volatile" but he is not saying that such a >>compiler would be reasonable. In article <751@garth.UUCP>, smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes: >The problem is his assertion such a compiler exists without proof, >demonstration, argument, or any other foundation. I asserted not that it does exist, nor even that it could exist, but only that one `perfect enough' to understand volatility (the attribute, not the keyword: the keyword is trivial) in a way that is `good enough' (produces decent code even in the presence of its conservative erring) *could* *be* *written* at some time in the future. This assertion I make without proof or demonstration, but most certainly not without foundation and argument. The problem is reducible to a class of aliasing problems, and even now there are compilers that handle aliasing in a limited fashion. That they will improve is certain; that they will become `good enough' at the volatility class is not, but it looks like a very safe bet to me. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris