Comment # 5 on bug 126 from Johannes Pfau

Oh, and back to topic:

> I am quite open to solutions, other than I don't think 'volatile' as a keyword > would be something reintroduced to the language am afaid.

Yes, that's what I fear as well. But thinking about it volatility is a property
of the memory location and that best maps to a type qualifier. (It's not
exactly the same thing, but we also have this conflation for immutable type /
read only memory and in practice it should work fine).

That's one reason why peek/poke are dangerous, just like the old D1 volatile
statements: If a volatile memory area is typed as a normal pointer you can
still pass it to functions which access it in 'non-volatile' ways.


OTOH one of the biggest problems with volatile in C is that it's not properly
standardized. If we invent GDC/LDC only solutions these will likely be slightly
different causing the same mess as in C/C++ (or even worse, if we don't have a
standard at all). So this is something which would really benefit from being
part of the D standard. Maybe there's some chance we can introduce a new type
qualifier, if not we'll have to do the next best thing, whatever that may be.