From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Pragma Volatile
Date: 30 Sep 2001 06:01:29 -0700
Date: 2001-09-30T13:01:29+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0109300501.3b837330@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m3ofnt26xq.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com
minyard@acm.org wrote in message news:<m3ofnt26xq.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>...
> Tucker Taft <stt@avercom.net> writes:
> I assume
> Mr. Taft know this but was trying to make another point.
Yes, indeed, reread his post more carefully, he was quite
clear and correct in what he said, which was that reordering of memory
accesses is not an issue on a single
processor. That is the only point he was addressing.
He was of COURSE not saying that Volatile is not significant on a
single processor.
Hint: if you think Tuck has said something that is
completely wrong, you are almost certainly missing
something :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-30 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-25 14:07 Pragma Volatile Jon R. Harshaw
2001-09-25 14:23 ` David C. Hoos
2001-09-25 14:38 ` Marin David Condic
2001-09-25 23:03 ` Mark Johnson
2001-09-29 17:38 ` Tucker Taft
2001-09-29 18:22 ` minyard
2001-09-29 22:28 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-09-30 13:10 ` Robert Dewar
2001-09-30 21:19 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-10-01 2:58 ` minyard
2001-10-02 9:38 ` AG
2001-10-02 10:59 ` Jeff Creem
2001-09-30 2:03 ` DuckE
2001-09-30 13:01 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2001-09-30 20:12 ` minyard
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox