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: 103376,751584f55705ddb7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems Date: 1996/02/21 Message-ID: <4gfmsr$bao@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140478241 references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk> <823965654.4500@assen.demon.co.uk> <824165619.14894@assen.demon.co.uk> <824259217.26321@assen.demon.co.uk> <824684333.9342@assen.demon.co.uk> <824761176.18193@assen.demon.co.uk> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) writes: >dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > >>pragma Volatile is identical to the volatile keyword in C. Most people, even > ^^^^^^^^^ >I mentioned somewhere else that I believed the volatile qualifier in C >could be ignored by the compiler. Can youo confirm that, and if this >is true, is it the same for Ada 95? No, C and C++ compilers can't ignore the volatile qualifier. -- Fergus Henderson WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh fjh@cs.mu.oz.au PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3