Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[Marco Leise]

Am Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:46:26 -0800
schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>:

> On 12/12/2013 12:33 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
> > Don't you find it somewhat alarming that both alternative compilers follow
> > neither the standard inline asm nor ABI?
> 
> I find it unfortunate. But it also can be difficult and time consuming to 
> reimplement an assembler for those back ends, so I can understand why it isn't a 
> priority.

It's not just that. I found that some discussion and work is
necessary about these issues, if D is ever going to have a
standard inline assembly language:

* GCC would have to support naked functions on x86/amd64 or DMD
  drop the keyword.
* DMD would have to adapt extended inline assembly expressions
  or the GDC/LDC "downgrade" to basic inline assembly.

A "downgrade" needs good arguments though. Not only did D
evolve over C, but the same is true for inline assembly. From
http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_assembly_expressions:

  Being an expression, extended inline expressions are able to
  return values!

  Additionally issues regarding inlining of function containing
  inline asm are mostly not relevant for extended inline assembly
  expressions. Effectively, extended inline assembly expression
  can be used to efficiently implement new intrinsics in the
  compiler.

-- 
Marco