Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!purdue!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: volatile
Message-ID: <11455@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 12 May 88 09:21:49 GMT
References: <2642@geac.UUCP> <225800029@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <4727@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 13

In article <4727@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes:
>... If it can't be well-defined, it shouldn't be in the language.

This line of reasoning also rules out integer-to-pointer casts,
as I noted earlier:

	struct rkdevice *rkaddr = (struct rkdevice *)0777440;

I am perfectly happy with ill-defined constructs.  (I consider other
some arguments for and against volatile valid.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris