[dmd-internals] Regarding deprecation of volatile statements

[Walter Bright]

That all long predates shared. Shared should be used instead.

On 7/24/2012 1:34 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>
>