Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[Marco Leise]

Am Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:34:17 -0800
schrieb "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx>:

> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:30:21PM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> [...]
> > Maybe the best way to fix this issue is to follow what other
> > language standards do (C++, Ada) and only define that inline
> > assembly is possible and how the entry point, e.g. asm () looks
> > like.
> > 
> > The real inline assembly syntax is then left implementation
> > specific.
> 
> But isn't this what Walter was arguing against? He wanted to standardize
> inline assembly syntax for x86 because leaving it up to implementation
> resulted in the current mess of Intel syntax vs. GNU syntax (which can
> be extremely confusing if you're not well-versed in both syntaxes, since
> the order of operands are swapped and there are some subtle notational
> differences).
> 
> 
> T

I for one am in favor of not having to write an ASM function
6 times for x86/amd64 * dmd/ldc/gdc. Before that happens I
write a mixin generator that translates takes a string of ASM
instructions and converts it to all three syntaxes at once.

-- 
Marco