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