On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, BCS <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello SK, > >> Does 'synchronized' mean the exact same thing as the C 'volatile' >> qualifier when applied to basic types? >> As in: >> synchronized int x; > > I'm reasonably sure that it doesn't. I think synchronized invokes a mutex > for access and C's volatile just suppresses some optimizations. > > -- > ... <IXOYE>< >
Andrei's book does not list volatile as a keyword in D. I'm at a loss unless 'synchronized' performs double duty as volatile. For example, device status registers are "const volatile" in C/C++. The compiler disallows writes and does not optimize away reads. Mutexes are irrelevant and for that matter the processor may not (and need not) even support atomic instructions. -steve
