[Info-vax] yet another sys$qiow question

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2015-08-19 12:18:30 +0000, Bob Gezelter said:

> Then I am (reluctantly) forced to agree with Hoff. There is a large 
> collection of code with latent problems in the examples.

John: I'd (and respectfully) suggest reviewing the old internal notes 
conferences — assuming those are available to VSI, as I recall various 
internal discussions of this particular topic over the years; but I 
don't recall off-hand whether the system service calls effectively 
always contribute barriers that obviate the need for the volatile 
keyword here.

If volatile is required here — and my quite-possibly-wrong recollection 
was that the compiler and the system service calls for $synch or the EF 
checks were sufficient — then please take the time in the documentation 
and the source code examples to create what will now be the proper 
coding practice, and — while you're at it — also please figure out if 
there are any other changes that you might want to or need to make in 
this same area (possibly up through changes that might be appropriate 
for x86-64 and/or C11 support?), prior to having us all reworking a 
gazillion C source modules.   If I have to change a zillion source 
modules, I'd prefer to do it once.

Fortran also has a VOLATILE, whether that will be necessary in Fortran 
code?  Here's an example that explicitly discusses the use of Fortran 
VOLATILE, and does not show VOLATILE used with the IOSB: 
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/82final/6443/6443pro_049.html



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC