Why not volatile on System.Double and System.Long?

Question

A question like mine has been asked, but mine is a bit different. The question is, "Why is the volatile keyword not allowed in C# on types System.Double and System.Int64, etc.?"

On first blush, I answered my colleague, "Well, on a 32-bit machine, those types take at least two ticks to even enter the processor, and the .Net framework has the intention of abstracting away processor-specific details like that." To which he responds, "It's not abstracting anything if it's preventing you from using a feature because of a processor-specific problem!"

He's implying that a processor-specific detail should not show up to a person using a framework that "abstracts" details like that away from the programmer. So, the framework (or C#) should abstract away those and do what it needs to do to offer the same guarantees for System.Double, etc. (whether that's a Semaphore, memory barrier, or whatever). I argued that the framework shouldn't add the overhead of a Semaphore on volatile, because the programmer isn't expecting such overhead with such a keyword, because a Semaphore isn't necessary for the 32-bit types. The greater overhead for the 64-bit types might come as a surprise, so, better for the .Net framework to just not allow it, and make you do your own Semaphore on larger types if the overhead is acceptable.

That led to our investigating what the volatile keyword is all about. (see this page). That page states, in the notes:

In C#, using the volatile modifier on a field guarantees that all access to that field uses VolatileRead or VolatileWrite.

Hmmm.....VolatileRead and VolatileWrite both support our 64-bit types!! My question, then, is,

"Why is the volatile keyword not allowed in C# on types System.Double and System.Int64, etc.?"

Answer 1

He's implying that a processor-specific detail should not show up to a person using a framework that "abstracts" details like that away from the programmer.

If you are using low-lock techniques like volatile fields, explicit memory barriers, and the like, then you are entirely in the world of processor-specific details. You need to understand at a deep level precisely what the processor is and is not allowed to do as far as reordering, consistency, and so on, in order to write correct, portable, robust programs that use low-lock techniques.

The point of this feature is to say "I am abandoning the convenient abstractions guaranteed by single-threaded programming and embracing the performance gains possible by having a deep implementation-specific knowledge of my processor." You should expect less abstractions at your disposal when you start using low-lock techniques, not more abstractions.

You're going "down to the metal" for a reason, presumably; the price you pay is having to deal with the quirks of said metal.