Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: volatile: a summary Message-ID: <11936@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 88 10:53:29 GMT References: <11837@mimsy.UUCP> <5080025@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 23 In article <5080025@hpfcdc.HP.COM> cunniff@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) writes: [stuff about shared memory] >Oh, sure, you could have a dictionary that says that 'volatile shm_get', (Well, at least you thought about it.) Yes, you would have to do exactly that, or else not optimise anything that comes back from a system call. >but if you're going to go that far, you might as well just add volatile >to the standard (oh, we're already doing that?). The point is that it is not *necessary* to add volatile as a keyword in the language. I will not go as far as Robert Firth and call it `stupid'; indeed, I happen to like the keyword, even though it is a `hacker's solution'. It is fast and easy, whereas a detailed analysis of possible aliasing and volatility is hard and likely to be slow. Having the keyword is much like having assembly language handy: when you want to do something unusual, it is easy. Error-prone and kludgey, perhaps, but definitely easy. It is just not *necessary*. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris