volatile semantics

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:28 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| > 
| > | On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:35 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
| > | > Daniel Berlin wrote:
| > | > >>> object volatile).
| > | > >>
| > You don't make people happier by transmutating their programs into
| > faster executable with (what they think) wrong semantics where there is no
| > way you can clearly and unambiguously justify those transformations.
| 
| Again, you try and posit it your view as clear and unambiguous when it
| simply isn't.
| It's not even close to that.
| 
| Personally, I actually give less of a crap about volatile and optimizing
| volatile than i do const, restrict, etc.  As long as you guys aren't
| going to start claiming this type of "Oh well, now my object is
| volatile, and now it's not, and now it is again, and now it's not.  Look
| at me, i'm dancing!" for other things, it's fine by me.

I generally don't care about volatile -- I don't believe it is a very
useful progroamming language device given its current definition.  I
care only when its implementation hurts users.

| Also, if we are going to play the "well, volatile is just different
| game", and you want no optimization whatsoever when someone says
| "volatile", then fine.

It is not me inventing that.  

|  I really have no problem with that.  I'll also
| simply point all the bug reports we get about "volatile not being
| optimized well" (sadly, we have them, take a gander :( ) to you or
| whoever wants to explain what semantic you think is correct.

Please give me references, it always is good thing.

-- Gaby