[dmd-internals] Regarding deprecation of volatile statements

[Sean Kelly]

We don't need 4 for concurrent access. That can be done in asm. What we need is a way to apply the same constraints on the compiler that asm already allows us to apply to the hardware, which is 1-3. 

On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:37 PM, "Martin Nowak" <dawg at dawgfoto.de> wrote:

>> Right, that's why it is incorrect to refer to it as "standard" behavior. Behaviors I've seen include various combinations of:
>> 
>> 1. disallowing enregistering
>> 2. preventing folding multiple loads/stores together
>> 3. preventing reordering across expressions with volatiles
>> 4. inserting memory load/store fences
>> 
> 1 && 2 for memory-mapped IO and 3 && 4 for concurrent access to shared memory.
> 
>> 
>> D volatile isn't implemented, either.
>> 
> At least for dmd it disables instruction rescheduling.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals