Lower than C?

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Dan" <murpsoft at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fja3kq$2gvl$1 at digitalmars.com...
> bearophile Wrote:
>
> If one assumes that the D compiler optimizes correctly, then HLL is good. 
> While Walter certainly is a talented compiler writer, like gcc, I doubt he 
> can get even most of it right.  For example, I don't think he's leveraging 
> SSE2 for much and so on.
>
> The good thing about D is that you can very readily plug away in x86 
> assembler.  The bad thing is that we can't do x86-64 or any other kind of 
> assembler just yet, and we still don't have compile-time code reflection.

If you use GDC, you can use ASM for any platform -- the downside being that 
you have to deal with the *godawful* GCC assembler syntax (and with AT&T 
syntax for x86[-64]).