[Info-vax] Volatile, was: Re: yet another sys$qiow question

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2015-08-25 13:34, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <00AFC216.1A864495 at SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>> In article <zgFbrkJP21g+ at eisner.encompasserve.org>, cornelius at eisner.decus.org (George Cornelius) writes:
>>> In article <mr792b$f9l$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>> [VAXMAN wrote:]
>>>
>>>>> 	TSTL	IOSB
>>>>> 	BNEQ	10$
>>>>> 20$:	BRB	20$
>>>>> 10$:
>>>
>>> Actually, to test just the status in VMS you would use TSTW.  But
>>> when testing for nonzero TSTL works as well and does not require
>>> any extra word extraction code on the newer architectures.
>>
>> THat's true but Johnny said he defined the IOSB as am int.  The C compiler
>> doesn't know that that that contains a word maintaining the status.
>
> Grrr... see what tablet typing can do to your ability to write.

I think people are making too much out of things here. I was merely 
making a point about how the compiler could optimize something. Maybe I 
shouldn't even have called it IOSB, and this discussion would not be 
going on...

Can people just get it, instead of getting hung up on all kind of side 
issues? :-)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol