A gentle critque..

[dennis luehring]

> The format for OBJ files (OMF I believe) is on microsoft's msdn site. I don't
> know how current it is. 

the obj file format is just one part of the way - i don't found any vc 
related abi descriptions? have microsoft ever released an offical c++ 
abi description?

 > However, I'm talking only about gcc's object file
 > format.

g++ has the most unstable c++ abi in the hole c++ compiler world
the gcc c++ abi changes from version to version - i think ~100 times :-) 
since 2.9xxx
the abi for the 4.x seem to become a "little bit" more stable

> GDC and GCC are tightly linked.  When the abi of one changes, so does the other,
> likewise with GCC-XML.  Any CPP which can be parsed by GCC can be output to
> GCC-XML.

so you saiy walter should "follow" this permanent abi changes? for at 
least 3 compiler-vendors (micorsoft, borland(which i need), gcc) with 
the chances of never getting to the point of having an 
full-out-of-the-box-working version?
what do you think will other no so gentle developers like us will say if 
D do it this way?

you can use c-style D in C (bidirectional)

why do think is there no c++ compiler out there whos speaking other c++ 
abi's then its own?

> As far as the Windows C++ abi, it hasn't changed in years as far as I know.  My
> MSVC 6 code still works with MSVC 8.  There have been changes to the heap
> allocator, but not the way vtables are implemented or registers are used.  

the vc6 object code isn't realy compatible with vc8 version (on what level?)
the microsofts c++ abi changed another time... (where are the documents? 
can anyone help with an link?)

> But since the D windows compiler isn't open source anyway.. it doesn't matter?
> You'd either use an OMF compatible version of GCC/GCD, or recompile your windows
> code with MinGW, or not use D at all.

i will never start to use another compiler in parts(or hole) of some of 
my years living projects - they are stable under development and i don't 
have the time and "power" to try out how far such a D feature is capable 
of link with my code wihtout any error (im afraid of hidden errors - 
found then months later...)

will you port parts of your project over if needed to mingw or something 
else only to get in contact with D?

in my company the vc and bc compiler is in use for years - because they 
are stable and under heavy use by mio. other developers - im not allowed 
to change the compilerbase!

>> but yours is header conversion AND the linkage problem - the winapi port 
>> will be finished long, long time before
> Wanna bet?  In any case, I only have to finish my system once and I'm finished.
> You're never going to be finished porting the Windows API headers.

why don't have you posted such message into the mingw forum years ago :-)

>>> I would suggest if you don't like it, then don't feel that you have to use it.
>> the problem is i would give it a try, but i don't think it would ever 
>> happen to exist...
> Of course not.  It is, after all, impossible as many people have explained to me
> in vauge detail.  Why would somebody ever even consider such a crazy idea, and
> who would want it anyway.

i want it

> Uh.. why would I want to do that?

just to get near to the problems with the linking

> Sure, Cpp calls also often pass silent return argument parameters in some cases.
> There are a number of details to consider.. but it's certainly not impossible,
> or improbably difficult as some of the people here would have you believe.

your right - its not impossible - but why should walter try to implement 
such an linkable feature into D with no stable abis around while he's 
building an next genration language?

i need a description of
current c++ abi of vc(6,7,8), bc(5.x,...) and gcc(3.2 to 4.x)


cioa dennis