From 829cb7de4c40f569e6895f979448a5acf4ea8918 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: uz <uz@b7a2c559-68d2-44c3-8de9-860c34a00d81>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:55:21 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Missing resp. ignored "volatile".

git-svn-id: svn://svn.cc65.org/cc65/trunk@4084 b7a2c559-68d2-44c3-8de9-860c34a00d81
---
 doc/cc65.sgml | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/cc65.sgml b/doc/cc65.sgml
index d5c66b119..2b824848c 100644
--- a/doc/cc65.sgml
+++ b/doc/cc65.sgml
@@ -428,6 +428,10 @@ and the one defined by the ISO standard:
 	conventions (see below).  It means that you must not mix pointers to
 	those functions with pointers to user-written, not-fastcall functions.
 	<p>
+<item>	The <tt/volatile/ keyword doesn't have an effect. This is not as bad
+        as it sounds, since the 6502 has so few registers that it isn't 
+        possible to keep values in registers anyway.
+	<p>
 </itemize>
 
 There may be some more minor differences I'm currently not aware of. The
@@ -1068,7 +1072,7 @@ a future version. Instead use the format specifiers from the table above:
 <sect>Implementation-defined behavior<p>
 
 This section describes the behavior of cc65 when the standard describes the
-behavior as implementation-defined.                                       
+behavior as implementation-defined.
 
 (to be done)
 
-- 
2.39.5