DMD 1.029 and 2.013 releases

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> >> It wasn't safe anyway, because it wasn't implemented. For now, just use
> >> synchronized instead.
> >
> > Um, I thought that the volatile statement effectively turned off optimization
> > in the function containing the volatile block?  This wasn't ideal, but it should
> > have done the trick.
> Just turning off optimization isn't good enough. The processor can
> reorder things!

Of corse it can.  But there are assembly instructions for that bit.  The unaccounted
for problem is/was the compiler.


Sean