From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: ada and robots Date: 1997/06/21 Message-ID: <01bc7c3b$186ad320$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251652641 References: <97061611223212@psavax.pwfl.com> Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote in article <97061611223212@psavax.pwfl.com>... [...] > BTW: What exactly does C provide to keep this from happening? I > don't recall it ever being something defined in "standard" C - and > why should it be? "Standard" C never defined any sort of > multi-tasking and so never needed any sort of mechanism to tell > the compiler that a variable should not be retained in a register. > Is there some sort of mechanism to do this? (I recall it had the > ability to tell the compiler you would *like* to have a given > variable allocated to a register - and maybe it did and maybe it > didn't. But I don't recall any way of saying "don't allocate this > to a register behind my back, please.") ANSI C provides the type modifier 'volatile' for this purpose. Is this what you were asking? Nick.