DMD 1.029 and 2.013 releases

[Walter Bright]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Walter Bright" wrote
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> From my understanding, the problem with doing this via inline assembler 
>>> is
>>> that some compilers can actually optimize inline assembler, leaving no 
>>> truly
>>> portable way to do this in language.  This issue has come up on
>>> comp.programming.threads in the past, but I don't remember whether there
>>> was any resolution insofar as C++ is concerned.
>> There's always a way to do it, even if you have to write an external 
>> function and link it in. I still don't believe memory mapped register 
>> access justifies adding complex language features.
> 
> Who's adding?  We already have it and it works.

No, we don't. There's volatile in C, which is being abandoned as a mess 
and C++ is going with a new type, atomic. There's the volatile statement 
in D, which is unimplemented.


> If volatile was not already a solved problem, I'd say yeah, sure it might be 
> more trouble than it's worth.  But to remove it from the language seems 
> unnecessary to me.

I don't agree that it's a solved problem.

> 
> I was just asking for justification for *removing* it, not justification for 
> having it :)
> 
> -Steve 
> 
>