On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a bit confused. > > First of all: From what I understand, volatile is merely a compiler > reordering fence. It has nothing to do with atomicity, nor > synchronization. Is this correct? > > Assuming my understanding is correct: Why does DMD suggest using > synchronized to replace volatile statements? It doesn't even remotely > do the same thing, is much heavier, calls into the runtime, etc. > > And further: How are people *really* supposed to prevent compiler > reordering in modern D2 programs (without using atomics; they are > expensive and wasteful for this)? > > Regards, > Alex
Ping? (Walter?) Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
