On Sunday, 5 April 2015 at 15:58:17 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
--- Comment #24 from Iain Buclaw ---
Compiler reordering should never mess up order of program logic
to variables/objects where changes are considered 'observable'
(eg, on shared data). Most re-ordering/memoization happens on
'non-o
Am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:41:42 +0100
schrieb "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" :
> On 16 July 2014 14:10, Johannes Pfau via D.gnu
> wrote:
> > Am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:53:30 +
> > schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
> >
> >> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 14:14:18 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think we should
On 16 July 2014 14:10, Johannes Pfau via D.gnu wrote:
> Am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:53:30 +
> schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
>
>> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 14:14:18 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>
>> > I think we should at least try to bring this to the main
>> > newsgroup,
>>
>> I told you this is not g
Am Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:53:30 +
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
> On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 14:14:18 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
> > I think we should at least try to bring this to the main
> > newsgroup,
>
> I told you this is not going to work. The decision seems to be
> made even when the co
On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 14:14:18 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I think we should at least try to bring this to the main
newsgroup,
I told you this is not going to work. The decision seems to be
made even when the conversion is still going on. Lets just make
this into gdc so we can continue t
On 30 Jun 2014 23:20, "bearophile via D.gnu" wrote:
>
> Iain Buclaw:
>
>> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126
>
>
> The D1 deprecation warning to replace volatile with synchronized:
>
>
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/c8d580aea687f16b56ff4ce935f618b41a74c6e7
>
>
Iain Buclaw:
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126
The D1 deprecation warning to replace volatile with synchronized:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/c8d580aea687f16b56ff4ce935f618b41a74c6e7
Bye,
bearophile
On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 14:14:18 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:46:11 +
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
To keep this thread going, I had a quick look at the reference
material of the dip and picked some thoughts.
In some languages volatile has a stronger meaning, like
gua
Am Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:46:11 +
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
> To keep this thread going, I had a quick look at the reference
> material of the dip and picked some thoughts.
>
> In some languages volatile has a stronger meaning, like
> guaranteeing an atomic access. In some languages it may not
On 24 June 2014 11:46, Timo Sintonen via D.gnu wrote:
>
> While writing this it just popped to my mind: if volatile is not good,
> could we reuse the 'system' word? Then it would be clear that this is for
> accessing system resources and not for application level.
>
> There seems not to be much d
To keep this thread going, I had a quick look at the reference
material of the dip and picked some thoughts.
In some languages volatile has a stronger meaning, like
guaranteeing an atomic access. In some languages it may not
guarantee anything.
In this proposal volatile is only for optimizat
Am Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:51:39 +
schrieb "Marc Schütz" :
> On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 17:27:52 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > And of course without a type qualifier there can't be
> > transitivity. The
> > programmer always has to be careful to access struct members,
> > array members,
> > and o
On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 17:27:52 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
And of course without a type qualifier there can't be
transitivity. The
programmer always has to be careful to access struct members,
array members,
and other types 'connected' via indirection with peek/poke.
I too think that a) vol
Am Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:37:04 +
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" :
> I did not yet read the dip but here are some of my thoughts:
>
Thanks for joining this discussion, your input is very appreciated.
> At the old days peripherals were simple. An uart might have a
> control register, a status registe
I did not yet read the dip but here are some of my thoughts:
At the old days peripherals were simple. An uart might have a
control register, a status register and a data register, 8 bit
each. It just did not matter how they were accessed. Now a
peripheral like usb or ethernet may have tens of
15 matches
Mail list logo
