Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!desnoyer From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: *devaddr = 0 and volatile Message-ID: <21686@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 5 Dec 88 17:34:19 GMT References: <674@quintus.UUCP> <117@halcdc.UUCP> <468@auspex.UUCP> <13784@oberon.USC.EDU> <14832@mimsy.UUCP> <9059@smoke.BRL.MIL> Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 16 In article <9059@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) writes: >In article <14832@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >>I would suggest that the compiler complain about volatile references >>that it cannot compile `properly'. > >Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. >After all, if the programmer specified "volatile" it is safe to >assume that he had a reason for doing so, and if it can't be honored >then something is probably going to break. The uncompilable example given was 'volatile char foo' on a word-oriented machine. If 'foo' is a hardware register, methinks a compiler error message is insufficient. You really should fire the person who designed such a f***-up. It ranks up there with write-only memory. 1/2 :-) Peter Desnoyers