GDC review process.

Alex Rønne Petersen alex at lycus.org
Tue Jun 19 18:01:26 PDT 2012


On 20-06-2012 02:58, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 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++
>

I see. I think it's a mistake to call that calling convention "D". I'm 
not against removing it, but the description is highly misleading.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list