GDC review process.

[Don Clugston]

On 20/06/12 03:01, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> 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.

And "C++ calling convention" doesn't make any sense. There is no such 
thing. On Windows, every vendor does it differently (even the ones who 
claim to be compatible with one another!).