GDC review process.

Iain Buclaw ibuclaw at
Thu Jun 21 01:24:34 PDT 2012

On 20 June 2012 21:16, Alex Rønne Petersen <alex at> wrote:
> On 20-06-2012 21:48, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On 20/06/12 20:35, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> And x86 inline assembler... on ARM? I don't think I follow.
>> If I understand correctly, the idea is that D
>> should have an inline assembler for each target architecture.
>> AFAICS what's desired is that you should be able to insert
>> asm
>> {
>> // target-specific assembly goes here
>> }
>> .... and have it accepted by _any_ D compiler. That seems to me to be an
>> important part of the language in general and even more so on
>> architectures that are suited to embedded systems. So while it may make
>> sense to cut the inline assembly in the short term for GDC, it doesn't
>> make sense to me for it to be a change that lasts.
> GDC currently supports x86, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC, and possibly others.
> The language reference lists assembly syntax for x86. I understand that in
> an ideal world, we'd have standardized assembly syntaxes for all of these
> architectures, but somebody has to actually spec and implement them.
> Besides, Iain has already pointed out that the x86 syntax in the spec
> doesn't integrate with GCC's inline assembly support at all (which is why
> GDC had the glue code for it). It took around 2000 lines (if memory serves)
> to translate the D inline assembly to GCC inline assembly. Now imagine
> having to do this for every architecture ever supported.

More closer to 4000 lines, and the current implementation is in no
state to be able to add more architechtures into the mix.

Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list