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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,148d39ae0d22411d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-30 06:01:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Pragma Volatile Date: 30 Sep 2001 06:01:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0109300501.3b837330@posting.google.com> References: <3BB08F9C.BFB01047@raytheon.com> <3BB10D52.4D455DBA@raytheon.com> <3BB60733.4A80708A@avercom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1001854889 9202 127.0.0.1 (30 Sep 2001 13:01:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2001 13:01:29 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13546 Date: 2001-09-30T13:01:29+00:00 List-Id: minyard@acm.org wrote in message news:... > Tucker Taft 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 :-)