On 7/18/2014 11:06 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
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.)
That doesn't change the heavy effort in the semantic front end and language
specification to support volatile.
Take the C++ Standard and grep for 'volatile' and 'cv-qualifier'.
