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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems
Date: 1996/02/20
Message-ID: <dewar.824868973@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140381451
references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <emery-0902962215150001@line316.nwm.mindlink.net>
 <823965654.4500@assen.demon.co.uk> <824165619.14894@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <JSA.96Feb13133713@organon.com> <824259217.26321@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <dewar.824575347@schonberg> <824684333.9342@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <dewar.824686315@schonberg> <824761176.18193@assen.demon.co.uk>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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?"

Volatile can only be ignored by a C compiler if it treats everything
as volatile by default, which is I suppose conceivable for a very
poor compiler, but other than this rather trivial observation I know
nothing that would justify or suggest this "belief".