On 7/17/14, 12:15 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 17 July 2014 17:16, Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:We had the volatile statement as a compiler barrier in D1. Why not basically that instead of a type qualifier? We pretty much need it back for atomics anyway.I don't recall volatile statements ever working properly, or at least working in an agreed way.
And that goes for volatile in C and C++ as well. -- Andrei
