Re: One more question (different now)

[Marcel Moolenaar]

Mike Smith wrote:
> 
> Ugh.  I don't actually like that, because it serves a valid purpose.
> What irritates me mostly is just that there is no way of casting a
> volatile object into a non-volatile type, so you can't implement any sort
> of conditional volatility exclusion.

You can however use a union and have a non-volatile object aliasing a
volatile object as in:

union u {
        volatile int vi;
        int nvi;
};

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
  mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  tel:  (408) 447-4222


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message