From -6028326258423547877 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e2cfdf64f67c7793 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:00:18 -0500 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:53:26 GMT Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu From: kanze@gabi-soft.fr Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <1GKClHFePJUBFwoH@jgharris.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on manifold.algebra.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=3.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.64 * 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name Lines: 42 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.81.147.48 X-Trace: sv3-O91AI8UbZ/nDavwe14RUqorqHCtTOShVz9C5S7UryFIo9BQgrKwHywe8DMXCtFY08NjvtWBIiuo1EPM!erXE/HBnxo392AQVlSHqA4OzscI/kALWkMjJhQ7D0hW5MKCVAbCBDnYpuZu5+0K5zIpcCo2RBjZb!YmT9p02Pj7kUkw8DlxAzdMuccQfdPx1O X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.13 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2895 brangdon@cix.co.uk (Dave Harris) wrote in message news:... [...] > > 4 What about volatile? > Good question. I hadn't thought about it, but I don't think it causes any > new problems. These: > // Proposed > volatile int x; > volatile int x( __uninitialised ); > under the new regime would have the semantics of: > // Current > volatile int x( 0 ); > volatile int x; > under the current regime - whatever semantics those happen to be. Which means that you've introduced a quiet change, which could seriously break user code. I don't know if it is really a problem. In all of the cases of memory mapped IO I've seen, the access has been through a pointer to volatile anyway (generally due to the fact that such memory must be at specific addresses, and casting an int to a pointer was the easiest way of achieving this). -- James Kanze GABI Software http://www.gabi-soft.fr Conseils en informatique orient�e objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place S�mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'�cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]