GDC review process.

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-06-20 12:51, Don Clugston wrote:

> 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.

You do understand that the GCC-style inline assembly will still be 
available?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg