------- Comment #7 from w6ws at earthlink dot net 2008-02-05 01:25 ------- Subject: Re: VOLATILE attribute not being honored with common block variable
Gosh - one learns something everyday. The bit with EQUIVALENCE is an interesting twist! It seems that F2003 would allow maximum flexibility. One of my complaints about VOLATILE has been that it is too 'strong'. The attribute lasts over the entire scope of the variable - whereas one might only need to ensure coherency with an external process at a specific point in the routine. (E.g., the spin loop in the example.) With the F2003 definition, one can use the name with the volatile attribute at that point, yet use its alias for maximum optimization at other places. So I actually like the F2003 definition and would prefer that the non-VOLATILEd name did not get the attribute. Walter -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35037
