Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 13.12.2013 18:34, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> 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
>

Yeah, but it is an easier path to have something standardized that 
corresponds to reality, than making all frontends agree on the same 
syntax and semantics for inline assembler.

If I understood correctly the current issues, that is.


--
Paulo