Re: GCC warnings for unused global variables

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 09:43 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I think you got my messages wrong.

No, we understand what you are saying, we just disagree with it.

> What I was saying, as already written in another message, is that
> volatile is not a reliable feature to use to write robust code with
> reproducible or predictable behaviour.

I'd say that volatile is a useful productive and reliable feature of C 
and C++ compilers and has been for a long time, and that those that 
don't understand what it is and does, shouldn't work on volatile in the 
compilers, nor should they write code that uses volatile.  I think we 
should refrain from frightening users or implementors that want to 
learn about volatile.  I think statements like the above can frighten 
naive users, and this is bad.

Our job should be to educate users as to what is practically portable, 
what works, what it means, and to fix any deficiencies in any language 
standards that can promise more and don't.  We can document in our 
manual what we think it should mean, if there are grey areas not 
perfectly clear in the language standard.

I don't see the point in scaring users wrt volatile.  I don't see the 
use in it.

I'm much rather you propose wording to add to the gcc manual that 
states exactly what you think volatile should mean, we can then debate 
it and agree and put it in, or disagree and try and have you adopt our 
view.