Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!ulysses!ggs
From: ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: const, volatile, etc
Summary: what do I do about old code?
Message-ID: <10929@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 2 Dec 88 20:52:53 GMT
References: <674@quintus.UUCP> <117@halcdc.UUCP> <468@auspex.UUCP> <9033@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 38

In article <9033@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <10919@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes:
| ...
> >The response I got from a C++ guru around here wasn't encouraging: he
> >suggested declaring everything volatile and ignoring the issue.
> 
> Maybe he was joking?

Could be, but he seemed serious.  This was in response to a question
about bug search and destroy missions directed toward existing working
code.  I think the implication was that fixing old code to work with
new compilers is boring; just sweep the problem under the rug and be
done with it.  Do it right when you write something new.

> >Maybe he's right, but that attitude could easily lead to a habit of
> >forcing all declarations to include the volatile qualifier just to
> >avoid a `silly' rule.
| 
> No, that's not the proper way to use "volatile".

I know that.  The point was that `some' variable needed to be declared
volatile, and it was easier to fix them all rather than find the right
one using reasoning.

> >Do any of you have some practical experience, plus suggestions for
> >living in the brave new ANSI-C world?
| 
> I have a "standard C language assist" file  that I configure
> for each system I port to, and that I include in each source file of
> my applications.

Good start.  Now, what do I do about upgrading a million lines of old
code to the new standard, and finding all the mis-declared variables.
-- 
Griff Smith	AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill
Phone:		1-201-582-7736
UUCP:		{most AT&T sites}!ulysses!ggs
Internet:	ggs@ulysses.att.com