ASM extensions

[James Dunne]

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Gabe wrote:
>>
>>> How difficult would it be to alter the inline assembler to accept 
>>> paramter
>>> arguments for new default syntaxes?  For instance, you could have 
>>> something like
>>> asm(intel) or asm(gas) or asm(arm) or asm(hal).  That way somebody could
>>> progromatically decide the base style of the assembly syntax they 
>>> were going to
>>> use.  It doesn't seem to be internally inconsistent, as virtually all 
>>> assembler
>>> code should be written in 'version' tags anyway, as I see it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very time consuming - you'd have to write whole new assemblers.
>>
> 
> You don't have to implement any of it, this could be a syntactic sugar.
> 
> for example,
> asm(intel)
> {
> ....
> }
> 
> would be a shortcut for
> version(intel)
> {
> asm
> {
> .....
> }
> }

Maybe you're missing the fact that DMD has to understand Intel-style ASM 
syntax so that it may process it correctly for the real assembler...

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/MU/S d-pu s:+ a-->? C++++$ UL+++ P--- L+++ !E W-- N++ o? K? w--- O 
M--@ V? PS PE Y+ PGP- t+ 5 X+ !R tv-->!tv b- DI++(+) D++ G e++>e 
h>--->++ r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

James Dunne