From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:13:10 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <39BFF408.BF3B8EE@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, <02c301c01db9$8141c3e0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 07ae08e8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> the real problem is how it was done in ANSI C.  i've got nothing
> against constants.  i've even been known to use the odd constant,
> but never a 'const' :-).

Since "const" doesn't mean "constant", again it's evident that
you're criticizing something that you do not understand.

> volatile?  yeah, i remember times when i coulda used it.  like in
> the 8th ed tu-16 tape driver that john mackin and i fixed.
> volatile would been nice, but we fixed it with a macro (no assembler).

I don't know the specific problem you encountered, but the PDP-11
PCC had a specific hack to disable optimization for certain kinds
of access that could be identified as potentially within the I/O
page.  I don't recall whether Ritchie's compiler performed the
optimization in the first place.

> i don't see that polluting the language in such a deplorable way
> is valid.

If you had better suggestions for how to address the same issues,
the C standards committee would have been glad to hear them.
It's easy to complain about what others do, but also pointless.