GDC review process.
deadalnix at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 13:54:06 PDT 2012
Le 19/06/2012 20:51, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> 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).
> 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.
frankly, we don't care. 32bits windows is not the plateform of the future.
GDC and DMD have consistent ABI on all other plateforms. This allow to
write code that compile both with DMD and GDC on most plateform.
This make no sense to drop D asm support. This is not because the
situation is b0rken on window 32 bits that we should break it on all
The asm syntax should be DMD compliant on x86 and x86_64.
Plus, gcc asm syntax is horrible, and DMD's is really nice.
More information about the Digitalmars-d