GDC review process.

[Timon Gehr]

On 06/20/2012 02:04 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 20-06-2012 01:55, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 12:47 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/2012 1:36 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>>>>> No, but the idea was to allow D to innovate on calling
>>>>>> conventions without disturbing code that needed to
>>>>>> interface with C.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is nice, but ideas aren't enough. Where are the benchmarks
>>>>> that show a
>>>>> performance improvement over the C calling convention? And even if
>>>>> such
>>>>> improvement is present, is it worth it in the face of people that
>>>>> don't want to
>>>>> add it to GCC?
>>>>
>>>> GDC can certainly define its D calling convention to match GCC's. It's
>>>> an "implementation defined" thing, not a language defined one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then let's please rename it to the DMD ABI instead of calling it the D
>>> ABI and making it look like it's part of the language on the website.
>>> Further, D mangling rules should be separate from calling convention.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC currently, the calling convention is mangled into the symbol name.
>> Do you want to remove this?
>
> Not that I can see from http://dlang.org/abi.html ?
>

TypeFunction:
     CallConvention FuncAttrs Arguments ArgClose Type

CallConvention:
     F // D
     U // C
     W // Windows
     V // Pascal
     R // C++