volatile: a summary

[Chris Torek]

[a defense of me, deleted]
>>Chris is correct when he says that "a perfect compiler
>>would not need volatile" but he is not saying that such a
>>compiler would be reasonable.

In article <751 at garth.UUCP>, smryan at garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>The problem is his assertion such a compiler exists without proof,
>demonstration, argument, or any other foundation.

I asserted not that it does exist, nor even that it could exist, but
only that one `perfect enough' to understand volatility (the attribute,
not the keyword: the keyword is trivial) in a way that is `good enough'
(produces decent code even in the presence of its conservative erring)
*could* *be* *written* at some time in the future.  This assertion I
make without proof or demonstration, but most certainly not without
foundation and argument.  The problem is reducible to a class of
aliasing problems, and even now there are compilers that handle
aliasing in a limited fashion.  That they will improve is certain; that
they will become `good enough' at the volatility class is not, but it
looks like a very safe bet to me.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris at mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris