Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: volatile (in comp.lang.c) Message-ID: <4727@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 12 May 88 01:17:50 GMT References: <2642@geac.UUCP> <225800029@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 15 In article <225800029@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I believe that a language, per se, should be divided into a "portable" >part and a language-specified non-portable syntax. But what does 'language-specified non-portable' really mean? The problem is, 'volatile' means different things on different machines and even in different implementations on the same machine. If it can't be well-defined, it shouldn't be in the language. Personally, I feel that there is a need for 'volatile' in C, but the way it is specified in dpANS C is not good enough for it to be useful. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_