DMD 1.022 and 2.005 releases

Frits van Bommel fvbommel at REMwOVExCAPSs.nl
Sun Oct 7 00:10:06 PDT 2007


Stewart Gordon wrote:
> "Frits van Bommel" <fvbommel at REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote in message 
> news:fe995o$3de$1 at digitalmars.com...
> <snip>
>> Also, AFAIK the compiler would be well within its rights to use the 
>> opposite order of .length and .ptr in memory; meaning that even if the 
>> C calling convention allows this the order they're passed in isn't 
>> guaranteed.
> 
> Not according to
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/abi.html

I'm not sure if that's part of the actual spec. If conformance to that 
ABI is required to be an implementation of D then only DMD qualifies, 
and non-x86 D compilers are impossible (since the ABI is x86-specific)...

And from that page: "A D implementation that conforms to the D ABI 
(Application Binary Interface) will be able to [...]" which I read to 
imply there can also be D implementations that _don't_ conform to that 
ABI. (such as GDC, and probably the compilers currently in production 
(LLVM, dil) as well as any compiler that supports non-x86 target systems)

> But one thing that might affect whether it works is if, on a given 
> system, the memory layout of the stack goes the other way or is even 
> non-linear.

Certainly. But such a system wouldn't be an x86, so see above.



More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list