DIP62: Volatile type qualifier for unoptimizable variables in embedded programming

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/17/2014 9:16 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> We had the volatile statement as a compiler barrier in D1. Why not basically
> that instead of a type qualifier?  We pretty much need it back for atomics anyway.

Volatile and atomic semantics are very different, are historically conflated and 
confused, and I think it's well worth it to use completely distinct mechanisms 
for both.