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