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: 1996/02/19 Message-ID: <824761176.18193@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140136902 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> <824259217.26321@assen.demon.co.uk> <824684333.9342@assen.demon.co.uk> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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? >those who think they know C, don't accurately know the semantics of volatile, >it is a little tricky, but the informal view (don't optimize away loads >and stores) is close enough for most purposes. Best Regards John McCabe