GDC review process.

[Brad Roberts]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Walter Bright wrote:

> On 6/19/2012 3:47 PM, Alex R?nne Petersen wrote:
> > On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> The ABI is not part of the language. For example, the C Standard says nothing
> whatsoever about the C ABI.
> 
> > Further, D mangling rules should be separate from calling convention.
> 
> I disagree. The mangling rules are not part of the language specification,
> either. But they are necessary so that a function with one convention won't be
> connected to one with another.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of c++, the mangling has got to be part of 
the language definition to facilitate interoperability between compilers.  
Similarily, the runtime's need to be interchangable.  Requiring the entire 
body of code to all come from the same compiler would be horrible.