DIP62: Volatile type qualifier for unoptimizable variables in embedded programming

[Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 19:31:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/17/2014 9:16 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> We had the volatile statement as a compiler barrier in D1. Why 
>> not basically
>> that instead of a type qualifier?  We pretty much need it back 
>> for atomics anyway.
>
> Volatile and atomic semantics are very different, are 
> historically conflated and confused, and I think it's well 
> worth it to use completely distinct mechanisms for both.

Fair enough. My point was simply that volatile as defined for D1 
seems potentially useful. I certainly liked it for concurrent 
programming, even if the guarantees it provided were only ever on 
paper and not actually implemented.