On 6 September 2013 13:25, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote: > On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote: >> But there's no equivalent to volatile statements other than >> implementing your own low level thread library for use in kernel-land >> to allow synchronized to work properly. > > > Frankly, but each day D becomes better, it becomes worse for systems > programming. I'll have more&more difficulties to defend it as an acceptable > solution at my workplace. > > I am sorry about that, but I cannot do much about it... :(
It's still systems level, just in user-land applications. It has always been the case that if you want to enter kernel-space with D, you have to drop phobos and implement a more low level druntime. For instance, the GC that comes with D is wholly infeasible for use inside a kernel . -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
