On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 11:56:46AM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An object that has volatile-qualified type may be modified in ways > > unknown to the implementation or have other unknown side > > effects. Therefore any expression referring to such an object shall be > > evaluated strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine > > The word you missed is 'Therefore'. If an implementation can > determine that an object is not modified unknown to the > implementation, the implementation need not evaluate it strictly > according to the rules of the abstract machine.
I don't read it that way. I read it as "whatever the implementation may think, it can _not_ determine whether the object may be modified/has side effects unknown to it". OG.
