Re: Pragma Volatile

[minyard@acm.org]

You are, of course, correct.  I didn't read the context, I just read
the paragraph that he wrote (and not what was he was responding to)
and misunderstood.  I apologise to Mr. Taft.

-Corey

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 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 :-)