Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:50:02 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: 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: <15328.11194.623723.611472@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.011030073149.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <3BDED411.DDEA0BD7@mindspring.com> <15326.55441.615206.243327@caddis.yogotech.com> <3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > Java has several problems: > > > > > > > > I still prefer it to C++'s problems. :) > > > > > > These all devolve into programmer issues. They are no worse > > > than the requirement to use prototypes or the "volatile" > > > keyword, which were added to C. > > > > 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. Only during OS type work, which most of the programmers never need to worry about. Nate 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?15328.11194.623723.611472>