From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <029101c01da4$7923b840$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@planete.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <39BF8712.296A26E7@redconnect.net>, <021801c01d8d$62ed7fa0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> <39BFAC84.E5FF679@null.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:03:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0704c95e-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>

> Sounds like you don't understand them.  What alternative to
> volatile does the Plan 9 compiler offer?  Crippled optimization?
> 

it's a self evident proof that plan 9 works without them.

the mess you can make with those 'storage classes' is not understandable.

that little tin god efficiency -- henry spencer.