On 6 September 2013 14:34, 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: >> Back to volatile.... the only (faintly close) alternative is 'shared'. > > > After some thinking, it wasn't about synchronization between threads as the > error message was misleading. Was not about volatile statements, but about > the POD volatile variables as in C, marked like that for the compiler to > never optimize away their effect. > > That is, whenever you write: > > *p=3; > a=*p; >
'p' should be marked as 'shared' in this instance. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
