>
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld.pleaseremove@att.net> wrote in message
> news:a7gom0$96n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> Oh, that's intuitive! :-( Add an extra empty function call in order to
> > prevent the compiler from doing some undesirable optimization. Uccccch!
> > There has got to be a better way to address the problem than this. I'm
> not
> > wedded to the "volatile" syntax and certainly not wedded to how C does
> > things. I was just pointing out, for those who have never done embedded
> > programming, a major reason for that syntax. If you can come up with a
> > better solution (I guess I don't count the ones you have proposed so far
> to
> > be better.) than I am all for it. You have showed such immagination in
> > solving other C/C++ deficiencies that I have reason to hope you can solve
> > this one elegantly.
>
> I did have a thought. How about a keyword "sequence", as in:
>
>     sequence;        // no caching across this keyword
>     x = *p;            // *p is always reloaded
>
> and:
>     x = *p;
>     sequence;        // *p is not cached
>
>

Go read a Linux Torvalds rant about SMP-safety, volatile, and "barrier()" (which is the Linux kernel's equivalent of "sequence"). And much of the thread is interesting, so I'm linking the whole thing (with this massive link - sorry).