On 07/17/2014 05:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* "volatile" has been one of the most awkward parts of the C and C++ specifications. If we're to learn of anything about it, it's we must stay away from it. It is extremely heavy for what it provides. ... ============== I think an approach based on functions peek/poke is a lot more promising.
I am not saying that we should add volatile as a type qualifier, but it should be noted that programs with volatile type qualifiers can be lowered to programs using peek/poke and possibly other API calls with limited effort. (it is especially limited since the effort could be mostly shared with 'shared', both in specification and implementation, as it is another type qualifier that (will) (presumably) influence(s) the behaviour of loads and stores.)
