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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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 13:12:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news2.rdc2.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Pragma Volatile References: <3BB08F9C.BFB01047@raytheon.com> <3BB10D52.4D455DBA@raytheon.com> <3BB60733.4A80708A@avercom.net> <5ee5b646.0109300501.3b837330@posting.google.com> Reply-To: minyard@acm.org From: minyard@acm.org Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:12:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.109.109 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news2.rdc2.tx.home.com 1001880729 24.7.109.109 (Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:12:09 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:12:09 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13559 Date: 2001-09-30T20:12:09+00:00 List-Id: 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:... > > 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 :-)