On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:28 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. 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. 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.
