> It is a matter of faith, and usually misplaced at that, since volatile
> isn't usually defined to place any constraints on the order in which
> operations become visible to other processors. Certainly not in the C, C++,
> or POSIX standards, although some platform ABIs do specify this to some
> degree.
>
> Both POSIX and C++ are trying to deal with this, but it's an uphill battle
> since processors differ widely on the sorts of constraints that they can
> support efficiently.
>
> In the meantime, people sprinkle volatile around and pray. All the world's
> an x86, right?
>

I think I'd be happier with new compiler pragmas in this case than a
keyword.  Then at least I KNOW that it can be ignored and will be optionally
supported by compilers on a per-case basis.

But then again, that's also true for "inline" in C++.  It's just a
suggestion, one that can be ignored.  The compiler can also inline stuff I
didn't ask it to.  [C99  has inline now too doesn't it?]