On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 19:31:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/17/2014 9:16 AM, Sean Kelly 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.
Volatile and atomic semantics are very different, are
historically conflated and confused, and I think it's well
worth it to use completely distinct mechanisms for both.
Fair enough. My point was simply that volatile as defined for D1
seems potentially useful. I certainly liked it for concurrent
programming, even if the guarantees it provided were only ever on
paper and not actually implemented.
