Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Don_A_Corbitt From: Don_A_Corbitt@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: volatile required? Message-ID: <22715@cup.portal.com> Date: 2 Oct 89 03:48:48 GMT References: <712@Aragorn.dde.dk> <16785@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 20 In article ??> Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca wrote [rest of article deleted] >>Is it acceptable that this program prints 3 instead of 4? >NO. This is a convenient type of oversight that allows so called >"optimizing compilers" like Turbo C and Microsoft C to squeeze >out extra performance from benchmarks. Too bad if production code >doesn't run with the optimizer turned on. True optimizing >compilers (WATCOM C,GNU CC) don't resort to "tricks" like this. >-- >Anthony >//// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu /// / I have heard that MSC 5.0 had optimizer problems, and most are fixed in 5.1. Of more importance, Turbo C doesn't have an 'aggressive' optimizer, and is not guilty of the sin mentioned here. It generates fairly good code anyway. Don_A_Corbitt@cup.portal.com Not a spokesperson for CrystalGraphics, Inc. "Mail flames, post apologies" "Support the three-line signature" Contrary to popular belief