Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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.
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
