GDC review process.

[Don Clugston]

On 19/06/12 20:19, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Had round one of the code review process, so I'm going to post the main
> issues here that most affect D users / the platforms they want to run on
> / the compiler version they want to use.
>
>
>
> 1) D Inline Asm and naked function support is raising far too many alarm
> bells. So would just be easier to remove it and avoid all the other
> comments on why we need middle-end and backend headers in gdc.

You seem to be conflating a couple of unrelated issues here.
One is the calling convention. The other is inline asm.

Comments in the thread about "asm is mostly used for short things which 
get inlined" leave me completely baffled, as it is completely wrong.

There are two uses for asm, and they are very different:
(1) Functionality. This happens when there are gaps in the language, and 
you get an abstraction inversion. You can address these with intrinsics.
(2) Speed. High-speed, all-asm functions. These _always_ include a loop.


You seem to be focusing on (1), but case (2) is completely different.

Case (2) cannot be replaced with intrinsics. For example, you can't 
write asm code using MSVC intrinsics (because the compiler rewrites your 
code).
Currently, D is the best way to write (2). It is much, much better than 
an external assembler.