>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Michael N. Moran wrote: I'm very much in favor of fine grained >> synchronization primitives in the compiler, but not of changes to >> volatile semantics. Paul> I wonder if it would be sufficient (if not preferable) to only Paul> extend (modify) the semantics for heap/stack and const volatile Paul> variables, as enforcing existing volatile semantics for such Paul> variables are at best of questionable existing value.... I'm not sure I completely understand, but volatile heap variables are perfectly meaningful today. For example, if I need to define a communication data area for the program to talk to some DMA I/O device, a volatile struct, or a struct some of whose members are volatile, allocated on the heap, makes perfect sense. paul