On 07/15/14 20:20, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d wrote: > (For example, in gcc even a force inline attribute does not inline if > -finline is not used. I don't consider that acceptable for this kind of > code. So we might have to special case Volatile!T even more in the > compiler, to really always inline)
Not inlining in unoptimized (-O0) builds wouldn't be a problem, it could even be useful sometimes (setting breakpoints for specific hw accesses etc). But is that actually the case? I practically never use -O0, so you just made me check - and indeed the GDC here *always* inlines always_inline functions, at "-O0", even when explicitly given '-fno-inline'... Anyway, the language *relies* on automatic inlining happening, this case isn't special. > Otherwise Volatile!T is OK, but it's a new, fancy idea and might need > lots of work, whereas a volatile qualifer could be implemented easily > and we know right now for sure that it'll work 100% as expected. There's nothing new about it - it's how it has been done in gcc-ese, for many, many years; it's just combining it with templates, which aren't exactly novel either. > Also there's effectively no increase in language complexity for users, > as nobody will use volatile with desktop applications. Actually, there are quite a few "normal" uses. The most obvious example probably being communication with signal handlers. Then there are various kinds of inter-thread/shared-mem communication schemes. Yes, D has many problems, some of which you have mentioned in this thread. [1] But introducing additional complexity to a language just to avoid other problematic areas is not a good idea; that approach does not scale. The result are many half-finished features, every one with some kind of problem. Could a 'volatile' type qualifier be made to work, and are there technical problems with the DIP? Yes, and No. I'm not ignoring the details; I probably agree with most, if not all, of them. I'm saying the DIP is a good answer, to the wrong question. artur [1] Which I didn't respond to, to avoid derailing the thread. ;)
