[dmd-internals] Regarding deprecation of volatile statements
Alex Rønne Petersen
xtzgzorex at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 09:52:18 PDT 2012
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 10:02 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> Not so. It would make it worse (read: less portable and less
>> performant) than writing C.
> I think this is a bit unfair - the C semantics you're talking about are
> specific to one compiler. They are not standard, and such has been a source
> of non-portable trouble in the C community.
Strictly speaking, yes, you can only rely on GCC implementing the GCC
semantics. But in practice, LLVM/Clang does too (since they want to be
a GCC drop-in replacement). I'd expect other compilers in the wild to
also follow this definition since GCC is the major compiler in the
But writing kernel space code in purely standard C is a pipe dream.
I've always liked to think of D as a more pragmatic version of C/C++
that recognizes that supporting obscure platforms from 40 years ago
might not be so important anymore.
> Nevertheless, you do have a good point about what should be specified as
> being part of the D standard.
More information about the dmd-internals