A different view of volatile

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <1054 at micomvax.UUCP> ray at micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>No....volatile is not ill defined, it is machine dependant, which is what
>you would expect it to be.

The semantics of "volatile" are LESS machine dependent than its omission!

>There is no connection between "volatile" and "atomic", "volatile" does not
>imply "semaphore".

This much is true.