[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 43

[Duncan Sands]

Hi John,

> In my opinion, I think you guys are really overthinking this: volatile should be
> volatile should be volatile. It makes the behavior of volatile easy to
> understand, it makes it easy to use, it allows LLVM to support the rules for the
> volatile keyword in C (AFAIK), and it doesn't require you to guess all the
> different, contorted ways in which volatile could be used.

you will be pleased to know that the latest LLVM doesn't remove "volatile" from
your example, so it looks like you are not the only one who thinks this :)

Ciao,

Duncan.