"Johannes Pfau" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Did you even read the section that explains why volatility is a property
of the memory address and not of the access (4.2.3)? What's your
response to that?
This is true, and it's the ideal I guess, but I'm not sure that it makes it
worth extending the type system for.
My use of volatile in C consists entirely of
#define SOME_REGISTER (*(volatile unsigned *)(BASE + OFFSET))
And this could easily be done in D with a wrapper around peek/poke
functions. (assuming they're intrinsics and inlining/optimization works
correctly)
So, the complexity it adds to the type system and overloading etc is not
worth it for my use cases. What are the other use cases where it pulls its
weight?
