ARM bare-metal programming in D (cont) - volatile

[Johannes Pfau]

Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:16:29 +0200
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" <t.sintonen at luukku.com>:

> On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 18:12:40 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > What's wrong with the solution Iain mentioned, i.e the way 
> > shared
> > is implemented in GDC?
> >
> > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bifrvifzrhgocrejepvc@forum.dlang.org?page=4#post-mailman.2475.1382646532.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
> > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bifrvifzrhgocrejepvc@forum.dlang.org?page=4#post-mailman.2480.1382655175.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
> 
> There is nothing wrong if it works.
> When I last time discussed about this with you and Iain, I do not 
> remember if this was mentioned. I have been on belief that gdc 
> has no solution.

Yes, this was news to me as well.
> 
> The second thing is, as I mentioned, that register access is such 
> an important feature in system language that it should be in 
> language specs.
> 
> A quick search did not bring any documentation about shared in 
> general and how gdc version is different. TDPL mentions only that 
> shared guarantees the order of operations but does not mention 
> anything about volatility.
> Can anybody point to any documentation?

Well to be honest I don't think there's any kind of spec related to
shared. This is still a very unspecified / fragile part of the language.

(I totally agree though that it should be specified)