[dmd-internals] Regarding deprecation of volatile statements

[Walter Bright]

On 7/24/2012 2:53 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> But shared can't replace volatile in kernel space. shared means atomics/memory 
> fences which is not what I want - that would just give me unnecessary 
> overhead. I want the proper, standard C semantics of volatile,

C does not have Standard semantics for volatile. It's a giant mess.

> not the atomicity that people seem to associate with it.

Exactly what semantics are you looking for?

> Besides, shared isn't even implemented yet - how can it actually be called a 
> valid replacement for volatile at all, at this point?

D volatile isn't implemented, either.

> It seems amazing to me that volatile was deprecated in favor of something that 
> isn't actually implemented (and even more amazing that the error message 
> points to a feature that doesn't do the same thing)... Note that I'm writing 
> actual kernel code here. I need something that actually works or I can't 
> reliably write this code in D...

I need to know what you're looking for.