Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:08:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Scheidt <rufus@brain.mics.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.20.0110311007290.25112-100000@brain.mics.net> In-Reply-To: <3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > Nate Williams wrote: > > > > You don't *have* to use volatile in C, and the addition of the volatile > > keyword came out of C++ work. We can blame it on C++. (I have a friend > > on the C++ standards committee, and we love to give him grief about what > > a joke the language is.) > > Actually, there are situations where you _must_ use volatile > to prevent register optimization of variables. > That's a compiler problem, not a language feature. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.4.20.0110311007290.25112-100000>