On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 16:27:53 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
You may have seen Mike's talk about D on embedded systems and
were
surprised about Iain's comment that using 'shared' as a
replacement for
'volatile' is actually only possible because of a bug in gdc.
DIP62 describes how to solve this problem and make embedded
programming
a first-class citizen in D:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP62
Well, this was posted just as I went to sleep for the night (I'm
in Asia), so I wasn't able to get my word in until the end.
Sorry!
DIP62 is the exemplary DIP: well researched and thoroughly
specified. I was actually in favor of peek/poke intrinsics until
the DIP62 and its citations took me to school.
I still believe that the type qualifier is the right tool for the
job, because despite having peek/poke intrinsics, users will
still navigate towards making a volatile type to wrap peek/poke,
as has already been proposed [1] Volatile!(T), [2] struct
VolatilePointerToUint, etc... It actually justifies DIP62, IMO.
After reading through this thread, the only argument against
DIP62 that really made much sense was the cost/benefit tradeoff
in the implementation. I can't speak to the complexity of the
implementation, but I do concede that the use of volatile will
only be used in the lowest layer of hardware abstraction
(although it will be used quite often there), and the workarounds
are not burdensome. The type qualifier would avoid such nonsense.
Anyway, I can see where this is going[3], so I guess I'll have to
patch my airplane[4] with a template to make it fly :(
[1]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/eznqslwpnxfnwlgzl...@forum.dlang.org
[2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/lq4hqi$1j77$1...@digitalmars.com
[3] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3773
[4]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WKRRgcEk0wg#t=65
Mike
