GDC review process.

[deadalnix]

Le 20/06/2012 18:18, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
> On 20 June 2012 17:00, Brad Anderson<eco at gnuk.net>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Iain Buclaw<ibuclaw at ubuntu.com>  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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Code with #if V1 and V2 raised another bell with the request to remove
>>> all code that relies on internal macros with proper if() conditions. If
>>> something is always going to be turned off, remove it.
>>>
>>> So, we shall also be saying bye bye D1 in GDC.  We'll miss you!
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) For anyone who has submitted patches for Mingw and Apple - sorry, but
>>> I'm going to have to yank out or alter certain bits.  Apple GCC is
>>> irrelevant now, and some Mingw checks look for if(target) when it should
>>> really be checking if(host) and vice versa!
>>>
>>>
>>> Most discussion I would imagine be on the decision to remove D inline
>>> assembler support from gdc.  So, nay sayers, do your worst, but
>>> unfortunately there is a +1 here for removal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Iain
>>
>>
>> I'm very much outside of my area of understanding but would it be possible
>> to use CTFE+mixin to generate GCC asm from DMD style asm allowing people to
>> still use a single version of the asm for both DMD and GDC?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brad Anderson
>
> Hmm... doable, yes, but it would require a similarly complex construct
> as the implementation in the compiler.  GCC Assembler is much more
> expressive than D Inline Assembler, and requires for you to describe
> everything a given asm command is doing, inputs, outputs, clobbers,
> and labels that we may jump to (if any).   The only thing I worry is
> that CTFE is not powerful enough process a long set of instructions at
> a fast enough rate to make it benefitial.
>

Can't gdc frontend process asm to gcc's asm and go from that ?