[dmd-internals] Regarding deprecation of volatile statements

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
<xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit confused.
>
> First of all: From what I understand, volatile is merely a compiler
> reordering fence. It has nothing to do with atomicity, nor
> synchronization. Is this correct?
>
> Assuming my understanding is correct: Why does DMD suggest using
> synchronized to replace volatile statements? It doesn't even remotely
> do the same thing, is much heavier, calls into the runtime, etc.
>
> And further: How are people *really* supposed to prevent compiler
> reordering in modern D2 programs (without using atomics; they are
> expensive and wasteful for this)?
>
> Regards,
> Alex

Ping? (Walter?)

Regards,
Alex