volatile semantics

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com> writes:

[...]

| | At this point we need:
| |   (1) agreement from C and C++ maintainers on access through volatile
| |       lvalue 
| 
| I don't know C++ well enough to say whether the analogous optimization
| is wrong for C++.

C++ has resisted, for two decades, the temptation of "improving" the
meaning of volatile :-) considering that it is C's baby.

[ the only area where there is a difference betwenn C and C++ is
  things like  x = y = z; but that wasn't desined specifically to 
  "improve" over C's semantics of volatile. ]

-- Gaby