From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Oct 31  8:50:13 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9B6AB37B408; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14402;
	Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:50:03 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f9VGo2N14277;
	Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:50:02 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15328.11194.623723.611472@caddis.yogotech.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:50:02 -0700
To: tlambert2@mindspring.com
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>,
	John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86
In-Reply-To: <3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com>
References: <XFMail.011030073149.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
	<3BDED411.DDEA0BD7@mindspring.com>
	<15326.55441.615206.243327@caddis.yogotech.com>
	<3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-chat.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-chat>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-chat>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> > > > > Java has several problems:
> > > >
> > > > I still prefer it to C++'s problems. :)
> > >
> > > These all devolve into programmer issues.  They are no worse
> > > than the requirement to use prototypes or the "volatile"
> > > keyword, which were added to C.
> > 
> > You don't *have* to use volatile in C, and the addition of the volatile
> > keyword came out of C++ work.  We can blame it on C++.  (I have a friend
> > on the C++ standards committee, and we love to give him grief about what
> > a joke the language is.)
> 
> Actually, there are situations where you _must_ use volatile
> to prevent register optimization of variables.

Only during OS type work, which most of the programmers never need to
worry about.


Nate

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message