A different view of volatile

[Ray Dunn]

 In article <11369 at mimsy.UUCP> chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
 >In article <178 at wyse.wyse.com> mikew at wyse.wyse.com writes:
 >>It seems that volatile is ill-defined when combined with operators
 >>that operate in-place.
 >
 >More than that, volatile is ill-defined *always*: on a machine
 >with only halfword load and stores, a fullword `a = 0' is not atomic.
 >

No....volatile is not ill defined, it is machine dependant, which is what
you would expect it to be.

There is no connection between "volatile" and "atomic", "volatile" does not
imply "semaphore".
-- 
Ray Dunn.                      |   UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.       |   TEL : (514) 744-8200   Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd   |   FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9   |   TLX : 05-824090