Oops, I missed your real point, which is that "volatile" ought to suffice as a compiler guide and there is no need for an additional pragma. By declaring a variable as volatile, the compiler would also leave untouched any code which refers to that variable.Thanks for the reminder about "volatile." It is an ancient and valuable feature of C and I suppose it's implemented correctly under gcc and some of the Windoze compilers even with high optimization options like -O2.From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[Moderator's note: FYI: no "pragma" is needed. This is what C's "volatile" keyword is for. Unfortunately, not everyone writing in C knows the language. --Perry]
Too bad that volatile is not guaranteed to work in all major ANSI-compliant compilers. Oh well. I wonder how gcc does with it?
[Moderator's note: I've quoted chapter and verse -- if it follows the
current standards, it is required to honor "volatile". It isn't
compliant by definition if it does not. gcc does indeed honor
"volatile", as do almost all other C compilers I have access to. --Perry]
I guess we should stick with either the recursive routine trick or the var-arg trick.
-- Patrick
http://fexl.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
