http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau <johannesp...@gmail.com> --- Oh, and back to topic: > I am quite open to solutions, other than I don't think 'volatile' as a > keyword > would be something reintroduced to the language am afaid. Yes, that's what I fear as well. But thinking about it volatility is a property of the memory location and that best maps to a type qualifier. (It's not exactly the same thing, but we also have this conflation for immutable type / read only memory and in practice it should work fine). That's one reason why peek/poke are dangerous, just like the old D1 volatile statements: If a volatile memory area is typed as a normal pointer you can still pass it to functions which access it in 'non-volatile' ways. OTOH one of the biggest problems with volatile in C is that it's not properly standardized. If we invent GDC/LDC only solutions these will likely be slightly different causing the same mess as in C/C++ (or even worse, if we don't have a standard at all). So this is something which would really benefit from being part of the D standard. Maybe there's some chance we can introduce a new type qualifier, if not we'll have to do the next best thing, whatever that may be. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
