inp/outp

[Carlos Santander]

0ffh escribió:
> Ingo Oeser wrote:
>> Because every D compiler HAS to implement it for every architecture.
> 
> I concur with Lutger on this:
> IIRC intrinsics are a compiler thing, not a language thing.
> They are routinely used for compiler-specific stuff, I take that as a hint.
> 

I remember that Walter once said that all in Phobos under std/ was standard, as 
a part of the D standard (I hope I'm getting my words right.) Thus, as Ingo 
said, a standard D compiler has to implement those things.

This (not specifically inp/outp, but Phobos in general) was a problem when there 
were licensing issues (I wonder if still there are some), as other D 
implementations would not be able to provide those features. In this case, the 
architecture-specific parts would be the issue to overcome.

In a way, it would be like expecting all OSes to have a registry. The sound 
solution was to put the Windows Registry stuff under std.windows. A D compiler 
that doesn't run on Windows wouldn't need to provide those modules. The same 
could be done for these intrinsics: put them in std.arch.x86.intrinsics, or 
something like that.

>> Making inline assembly better [...] is the more useful goal. [...]
>> This will reduce X86ism in D. DMD can learn A LOT from GCC in that area.
> 
> Ach, blast! I don't care to fight any more over this... come macros I don't
> even need inlineable functions anymore!
> 
>                ALL HAIL WALTER AND HIS AST MACROS! :-)))
> 
> They might be just the kick ass feature to kick off the final take off...
> 
> Regards, frank


-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal