From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnick" <vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Message-ID: <20021114044201.A11748@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
References: <01974d0bd36314a7c8172b6eca15effe@plan9.bell-labs.com>, <20021113042632.A6338@unicorn.math.spbu.ru> <3DD1DEBA.9040903@null.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3DD1DEBA.9040903@null.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:42:01 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e14dba0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:15:56AM +0000, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Roman V. Shaposhnick wrote:
> > The problem with volatile, of course, is that it is just a
>  > hint not a directive ( well, at least  that's how I interpret
>  > C99 Standard ).
>
> I don't see how you can interpret the C standard that way.

I don't have C99 standard handy, but here's what C++ ISO Standard
says about volatile ( para 7.1.5.1 section 8 ):

"Note: volatile is a hint to the implementation to avoid aggressive
optimization involving the object because the value of the object
might be changed by means undetectable by an implementation. "

and since later on in the same section we read:

"In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in
C++ as they are in C."

I assumed that for C99 it is also merely a hint. I'd be glad to
be contradicted with factual information.

Thanks,
Roman.