Volatile declaration in C++
Richard O'Keefe
ok at cs.mu.oz.au
Mon Oct 16 18:45:30 AEST 1989
In article <4176 at pegasus.ATT.COM>, psrc at pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
> In article <42718 at sgi.sgi.com>, karsh at trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
> > Has anyone figured out how to make volatile work in cfront? Are there any
> > plans to make volatile an official part of the language?
> It's dead, Jim. (Gee, that'd be sort of confusing; can we just call
> you Bruce?-) It's like this:
What Dennis Ritchie declared "non-negotiable" was not 'volatile'
but 'noalias'. He wasn't opposed to the basic idea as such, but
to kludging in an untried hack at the last possible minute. Volatile
*IS* in the draft ANSI standard for C.
> And lo, the multitudes said, "Verily, it art good; but couldja add
I do hope they spoke better English than that. "art" is second-person
singular present indicative.
> And the multitudes ... did sayest, "Huh?"
English again: "sayest" is second-person singular present indicative.
> themselves, "Hey, this Barn fellow has some really hot stuff." And so
I thought it was "Bjarne".
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list