GDC review process.

[Iain Buclaw]

On 19 June 2012 19:51, Alex Rønne Petersen <alex at lycus.org> wrote:
> On 19-06-2012 20:44, bearophile wrote:
>>
>> Iain Buclaw:
>>
>>> Most discussion I would imagine be on the decision to remove D inline
>>> assembler support from gdc. So, nay sayers, do your worst, but
>>> unfortunately there is a +1 here for removal.
>>
>>
>> I suggest to try to do the opposite, that it to try to increase
>> the current conformance of GDC to D/DMD specs (like introducing D
>> calling conventions, if they are missing).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
>
> Not gonna happen. The D calling convention is Windows/32-bit only.
> Implementing a new calling convention in all major compiler back ends is not
> something you do trivially. Further, I doubt the GCC maintainers would
> actually approve of doing this.
>

To quote from one of the i386 backend maintainers:
---
"Does D *really* require a new calling convention?  Also does it
*really* require naked support?  I think naked support is a bad idea
and people who require naked support should be writing an assembly
function wrapper."
---


-- 
Iain Buclaw

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