GDC review process.
deadalnix at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 05:30:49 PDT 2012
Le 20/06/2012 13:04, Manu a écrit :
> Case 1 has no alternative to inline asm. I've thrown out some crazy
> ideas to think about (but nobody seems to like them). I still think it
> could be addressed though.
> Case 2; I'm not convinced. These such long functions are the type I'm
> generally interested in aswell, and have the most experience with. But
> in my experience, they're almost always best written with intrinsics.
> If they're small enough to be inlined, then you can't afford not to use
> intrinsics. If they are truly big functions, then you begin to sacrifice
> readability and maintain-ability, and certainly limit the number of
> programmers that can maintain the code.
> I rarely fail to produce identical code with intrinsics to that which I
> would write with hand written asm. The flags are always the biggest
> challenge, as discussed prior in this thread. I think that could be
> addressed with better intrinsics.
I'm sorry, but what you say is rather ignorant.
Not that it is wrong, but it only cover YOUR usage of inline asm. You
are talking about performances, but many other usages of assembly code
are very useful, valid, and cannot be replaced by intrinsics. druntime
is full of that, Walter and I presented you piece of code specifically.
None of that could have been done without 100% asm functions.
It is clear, however, that the compiler should get a better
understanding of asm.
More information about the Digitalmars-d