??? 05/14/09 20:17 Read: times |
#165357 - I wouldn't have thought so? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Neil Kurzman said:
It could be some non-standard feature of some compiler.
There is a lot of that with 'C' Is there? There are things that are specifically stated to be "undefined" or "implementation defined" - but neither static nor volatile is either of those. |
Topic | Author | Date |
C lang. question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Confused | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Did you get the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Do you _want_ the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Same same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, that was exactly what I meant! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re:job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I wouldn't have thought so? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Who knows | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not really applicable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Still missing the point. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
using 'const' for 'code' would be very bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Two examples | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Different issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
architectual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Actually irrelevant to the const keyword | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if it is irrelevant, then why ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Because they are not equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Exactly. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Standard mechanisms for extensions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
volatile applies to data - not functions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Delay loops in 'C' (or any other HLL) | 01/01/70 00:00 |