🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26909@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> twagner@madrone.berkeley.edu (Tim Wagner) writes:
> [....]
>One possible solution is to apply machine-independent semantics for the
>keyword volatile.  That is, the following chart will obtain:
>      | volatile | none
>-------------------------
>const |     A    |  B
>-------------------------
>none  |     C    |  D
>-------------------------
>A:  A name declared with these specifiers has a read-only access restriction
>    associated with it (i.e., the name is read-only), but the underlying
>    object is read/write.  Casts to B can occur implicitly; casts to
>    C or D must be explicit.

I disagree with this interpretation; the name declared might well refer
to a register that is updated by hardware but that is not to be touched by
at least part of the software.  For example, the register might be
part of a real-time clock, and writing to the register might have
the effect of setting the clock -- not an operation to be performed
lightly!

In this case, the compiler should prohibit modifying the object referred
to by the name, but must not assume that a copy of the object still has
the same value as the object itself (since the object is subject to change
by outside agents).

Therefore, I feel that casts from A to all of B, C, and D should be explicit.


					Thanx, Paul