DIP62: Volatile type qualifier for unoptimizable variables in embedded programming

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/18/2014 11:06 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/17/2014 05:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> * "volatile" has been one of the most awkward parts of the C and C++
>> specifications. If we're to learn of anything about it, it's we must
>> stay away from it. It is extremely heavy for what it provides.
>> ...
>>
>> ==============
>>
>> I think an approach based on functions peek/poke is a lot more promising.
>
> I am not saying that we should add volatile as a type qualifier, but it should
> be noted that programs with volatile type qualifiers can be lowered to programs
> using peek/poke and possibly other API calls with limited effort. (it is
> especially limited since the effort could be mostly shared with 'shared', both
> in specification and implementation, as it is another type qualifier that (will)
> (presumably) influence(s) the behaviour of loads and stores.)

That doesn't change the heavy effort in the semantic front end and language 
specification to support volatile.

Take the C++ Standard and grep for 'volatile' and 'cv-qualifier'.