[Bug 126] Add support for attribute to mark data as volatile.

[via D.gnu]

On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 17:27:52 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> And of course without a type qualifier there can't be 
> transitivity. The
> programmer always has to be careful to access struct members, 
> array members,
> and other types 'connected' via indirection with peek/poke.

I too think that a) volatile is necessary, and b) that it should 
apply to variables, not operations. However, I'm not convinced of 
transitivity. It makes sense to treat members of a volatile 
struct as volatile, too, but I don't see why this needs to be the 
case for pointers. Are there even cases of volatile pointers at 
all? Usually, hardware registers don't contain pointers, and when 
they do (DMA-like things maybe, but those typically use physical 
addresses, not (virtual) pointers), what they point to would 
probably be normal memory, wouldn't it?