C++ Logo

SG14

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Challenging the deprecation of volatile compound statements
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-12 10:09:49


On 12/02/2021 12.26, Jeffrey Olkin (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK) via SG14 wrote:
> Please also note that there is a paper in review that follows through on removal of previously deprecated items. Removal of deprecated volatile types is addressed here:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2139r2.html#3.5 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2139r2.html#3.5>
>
> It is my understanding from Alisdair Meredith (author of the paper and fellow Bloomberg colleague) that "[t]here was consensus to remove increment and decrement on volatile, compound assignment on volatile, volatile return types, and volatile in structured bindings, although most votes were just weakly in favor. The support for removing volatile on function parameters was split evenly on weakly in favor or neutral."
>
> He would be interested in syncing up to understand where we are concerning this. It is not clear to me whether one would un-deprecate as part of this consolidated paper.

The paper is still in the works, so the "volatile compound assignment" paper
should reference it. However, I'm not seeing expedited progress with
P2139.

Jens


SG14 list run by sg14-owner@lists.isocpp.org

Older Archives on Google Groups