Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[Manu]

On 13 December 2013 06:08, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 08:57:42PM +0100, Max Samukha wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 17:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> > >11. inline assembler being a part of the language rather than an
> > >extension that is in a markedly different format for every
> > >compiler
> >
> > Ahem. If we admit that x86 is not the only ISA in exsistence, then
> > what is (under)specified here http://dlang.org/iasm.html is a
> > platform-specific extension.
>
> I've always wondered about that. What is D supposed to do with asm
> blocks when compiling for a CPU that *isn't* x86?? What *should* a
> conforming compiler do? Translate x86 asm into the target CPU's
> instructions?  Abort compilation? None of those options sound
> particularly appealing to me.
>

It occurs to me that a little sugar would be nice, rather than:

version(x86)
{
  asm
  {
    ...
  }
}
else version(ARM)
{
  asm
  {
    ...
  }
}

Which appears basically everywhere an asm block does. 'asm' could
optionally receive an architecture as argument, and lower to the version
wrapper:

asm(x86)
{
  ...
}
else asm(ARM)
{
  ...
}

(The 'else's in those examples seem unnecessary)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131213/28fa941d/attachment.html>