This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Melissa O'Neill <oneill at cs dot hmc dot edu>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:57:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <FACAB2E3-FEB1-4C1E-A3BF-673C606C0BFB@cs.hmc.edu> <20050425010257.GA30701@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck wrote:

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:07:05PM -0700, Melissa O'Neill wrote:

I'm in the camp that believes that the committee shouldn't change the semantics of volatile.
Many good arguments, particularly your point about "old volatile"
vs "new volatile".

I agree.

I've no objection in principle to adding new functionality, but overloading the old keyword doesn't seem like a great idea. The best reason to overload the old keyword would be if the current definition of volatile has no utility, but AFAICT, the current definition does say enough to be useful in some circumstances.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

References:
- Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++
  - From: Melissa O'Neill
- Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++
  - From: Joe Buck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]