On 10/11/2012 10:35 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 11-10-2012 14:42, Chad J wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 01:40 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose a simple D_Volatile version identifier will do, like we have
>>> D_SIMD for core.simd.__simd.
>>>
>>
>> Cool.
>
> OK, updated.
>

I do have a critique for your description:

> Compilers that support these intrinsics must define the D_Volatile version identifier. Compilers that do not may support them, but programmers should not rely on it.

I read this as meaning:
Compilers that support volatile intrinsics must define D_Volatile.
Compilers can support volatile intrinsics without defining D_Volatile.

And I see a contradiction ;)

On 12-10-2012 04:05, Chad J wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 10:35 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 11-10-2012 14:42, Chad J wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2012 01:40 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suppose a simple D_Volatile version identifier will do, like we have
>>>> D_SIMD for core.simd.__simd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cool.
>>
>> OK, updated.
>>
>
> I do have a critique for your description:
>
>> Compilers that support these intrinsics must define the D_Volatile
>> version identifier. Compilers that do not may support them, but
>> programmers should not rely on it.
>
> I read this as meaning:
> Compilers that support volatile intrinsics must define D_Volatile.
> Compilers can support volatile intrinsics without defining D_Volatile.
>
> And I see a contradiction ;)
>

Oops. It should be clearer now.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org

On 10/11/2012 10:18 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>
> Oops. It should be clearer now.
>

It is!