chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (12/02/88)
[not again!] In article <9016@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >... "noalias" ... was an attempt to solve a real performance problem ... >"volatile" also serves a need. ... it is transparent to virtually all >existing code, it addresses a real need, and it can be ignored by anyone >who does not specifically need it. That---in particular the lattermost clause---is true of `volatile'; it is not true of `noalias', at least as it was conceived and proposed. It could only be ignored when not used, not even by library routines called by routines called by you. Having been through the arguments before, I intend to omit them this time around and simply leave the statement at that. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris