On 1 February 2015 at 16:32, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > On 1 February 2015 at 16:22, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d > <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >> On 2/1/15 8:09 AM, Timo Sintonen wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 15:28:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/1/15 1:38 AM, Timo Sintonen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The one of major issues is: how to access hardware. We need a language >>>>> feature to access hardware registers. >>>> >>>> >>>> What features do Rust and Nim provide for such? >>>> >>>> Andrei >>> >>> >>> I was not the one who compared the languages and I have never used rust >>> or nim. I just pointed out that d had no way to access registers >>> properly. DMD and GDC optimize very heavily and may cache, reorder and >>> remove any access they think is not needed. >>> Other languages may not have such optimizations and registers can be >>> accessed just with normal memory oprations. >> >> >> How do volatileLoad() and volatileStore() in core.bitop fail to meet such >> needs? -- Andrei >> >> > > Only if optimisation passes removes the promise the compiler gives to > the user. I'll have to check whether or not the proposed > implementation in gdc is even viable vs. having a 'C volatile' type. > > Iain.
I believe the litmus test was to create a library struct Volatile(T) type.
