Possible Bug gcc-2.3.3 [Additional]

Article View: gnu.gcc.bug

Article #1619

#1619

From: Mike Tiller
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 00:09

17 lines
715 bytes

Ok, I'm moron for not including this my post 2 seconds ago.  I
meant to include (honestly).

If I change

int done = 0;

to 

int volatile done = 0;

everything works.  Is this mandatory for this case (in other
words do I have to tell the compiler done is volatile?)

Thanks

Michael Tiller

Technical Details

Message-ID: <C0K8G9.2MA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!solace.me.uiuc.edu!tiller

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!solace.me.uiuc.edu!tiller
From: tiller@solace.me.uiuc.edu (Mike Tiller)
Subject: Possible Bug gcc-2.3.3 [Additional]
Message-ID: <C0K8G9.2MA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:09:43 GMT
Approved: bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
Lines: 20