From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5i8i+s+tCc4RDSFZzviPGShTA8NX8mBZ4WRmUtz87ewLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0512e2aede262f37ed92b1d9a8902ad6@quintile.net>
	<CAOw7k5i8i+s+tCc4RDSFZzviPGShTA8NX8mBZ4WRmUtz87ewLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:09:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOw7k5j8xQgRjPcJKiCozYkOaCVvr7b7eZ6wyMSzi5ec02Gjyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c - is this leagal?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc817db2-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

By which I meant that yes, it's legal ANSI C code to combine them. The
strange way the compiler implements volatile references probably led
to that odd diagnostic.
As I said, I'd try nopping the volatile.

On 21 November 2012 13:30, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> static is scope, volatile has dynamic effects, very dynamic.