Should GDC remove internal dependency on stdarg?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 16 March 2012 22:50, Artur Skawina <art.08.09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/16/12 13:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 16 March 2012 11:33, Artur Skawina <art.08.09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/12/12 16:35, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>> I'm picking up some old issues from bugzilla, this one is worth
>>>> having a community review.
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1949
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should hidden GCC features be imported from a magic module
>>>> provided by gcc.* packages - or should the implementation be
>>>> re-written using pragmas instead?
>>>
>>> Well, what's the definition of "hidden" here? The access to "std" stuff
>>> (varargs, intrinsics etc) might be done via pragmas in magic GCC modules,
>>> but many user-accessible things need to be exposed via pragmas anyway.
>>> And they need to be accessible from D - eg: how do you set GCCs align
>>> attribute from D?... [1]
>>>
>>
>> By using align(). :-)
>>
>>> artur
>>>
>>> [1] via pragmas; D's "align" does not count.
>>
>> :-(
>>
>> pragma(attribute) or pragma(set_attribute) are the second door in. You
>> need to lookup GCC's documentation on Declaration and Type attributes
>> for the exact names.
>
> The problem is the "align", which happens to be a D keyword...
>
> I was concerned about other such issues with pragmas.
>
> artur

It accepts both forms of attribute names.  That is align and __align__.



-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';