GDC review process.

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 20-06-2012 21:08, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 20/06/12 18:10, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> I am not too sure about that: In my opinion, your description of the
>> problem
>> would be accurate if some compiler implemented asm {}, but with a
>> different
>> syntax or different semantics. But GDC simply does not (resp. will not)
>> implement D-style inline assembly at all. From my point of view, this
>> is not
>> necessarily a problem spec-wise, as it is not guaranteed to be
>> available – if it
>> was, there would be no reason to have D_InlineAsm_X86 at all.
>
> Reading http://dlang.org/iasm.html I don't have the impression that the
> inline assembler is an optional part of the D spec or not guaranteed to
> be available -- it's very deliberately intended to be there.
>
>> Needless to say, inline assembly is sometimes a very convenient
>> feature to have,
>> but if it is the only issue stopping GDC from being merged to mainline
>> GCC, I'd
>> say the only sensible choice is to yank it, at least it for the time
>> being. If,
>> at a later point, somebody comes up with a clever way to implement it
>> given the
>> constraints imposed by the GCC infrastructure, or manages to convince
>> the GCC
>> maintainers to accept the »dirty« solution, it could still be added in
>> again.
>
> For sure it make sense as a short-term compromise, but I don't see how
> GDC can meet the D specifications without implementing the inline
> assembler at some point in the (hopefully near) future. When you
> consider that GDC is the best bet for being able to compile D on ARM
> processors, and a major application here is embedded systems, it really
> seems necessary to plan to have this functionality in there.

And x86 inline assembler... on ARM? I don't think I follow.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org