volatile in struct

[Sergei Organov]

Angelo Fraietta <afraiett at bigpond.net.au> writes:
> Sergei Organov wrote:
> >Angelo Fraietta <afraiett at bigpond.net.au> writes:
> >
> >>Sergei Organov wrote:
> >>
> >>>The questions being discussed are not what particular compiler does, but
> >>>primarily what is guaranteed and what's not according to the C/C++
> >>>standards. Surprisingly enough sometimes some people still care about
> >>>standards conformance ;)
> 
> >>Try comp.lang.c++ for discussing what is guaranteed by the c++ language
> >>standard.
> >>
> 
> >
> >Thanks, but why did you say that, -- did I discuss it here?!
> 
> Sorry, Maybe I misunderstood. I though that that was what you were saying
> that you wanted to discuss
> 
> primarily what is guaranteed and what's not according to the C/C++

Yes, you've missed what I've actually wrote in the answer previous to those
one you've cited:

> > There just been lengthy discussion in 'comp.programming.threads' and
> > 'comp.lang.c++.moderated' newsgroups about what volatile actually means in
> > C/C++ between rather experienced programmers. I had no intention to repeat
> > all that here.

I was referring to the related discussions in comp.programming.threads and
comp.lang.c++.moderated for those who is interested in that subject and
explicitly told that I have no intention to discuss it here.

> If that is what you want to discuss, comp.lang.c++ are right up to speed on
> what was guaranteed by volatile.

No, I don't. It's just my answer to the initial OP's question that caused some
discussion about volatile in general.

> Either way, I'll try to endeavour to help you in whatever way I can.

OK, let's stop this as it's already an OT.

-- 
Sergei.