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: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems Date: 1996/02/18 Message-ID: <824684479.9342@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 139972518 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk> <823965654.4500@assen.demon.co.uk> <824165619.14894@assen.demon.co.uk> <824332550.2485@assen.demon.co.uk> <312609D9.4E6F@flash.net> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >John McCabe says >"> What pragma shared is _not_ is a directive to enforce no optimisation >> of an object. On the other hand, this is exactly what the C volatile >> qualifier is." >Not quite, in particular the "exactly" here is confusing. THe exact >definition of volatile is a little tricky (but quite precise). The >meaning of "optimization" is also tricky and not at all precise. As far as K&RII is concerned, in the section in the back with the annotations it explains the purpose of the volatile qualifier as being to ensure that the compiler doesn't optimize e.g. redundant assignments etc on a particular object. I'll check the book when I get to work tomorrow and give you the exact comment if you want. Best Regards John McCabe