From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:42:27 +0000 From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <39BFAC84.E5FF679@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <39BF8712.296A26E7@redconnect.net>, <021801c01d8d$62ed7fa0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> Subject: Re: [9fans] no const? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 06f250c6-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Boyd Roberts wrote: > From: "David L Rubin" > > This is a bit mysterious...why are volitile and const ignored? > 'cos they were stupid, unnecessary, incomprehensable language abortions. Sounds like you don't understand them. What alternative to volatile does the Plan 9 compiler offer? Crippled optimization? "const" can be ignored by the compiler without adversely affecting any strictly conforming program, but by doing so a valuable diagnostic is lost (for a function that is not supposed to modify the object one of its arguments points to, but does). const also allows data to be placed in ROM or I address space, for compilers that grok that.