Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:06:26 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: One more question (different now) Message-ID: <3918A802.A420EC76@cup.hp.com> References: <200005092342.QAA20940@mass.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Ugh. I don't actually like that, because it serves a valid purpose.
> What irritates me mostly is just that there is no way of casting a
> volatile object into a non-volatile type, so you can't implement any sort
> of conditional volatility exclusion.
You can however use a union and have a non-volatile object aliasing a
volatile object as in:
union u {
volatile int vi;
int nvi;
};
--
Marcel Moolenaar
mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org
tel: (408) 447-4222
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3918A802.A420EC76>