narrowed down the problem area [naked asm]

[Walter Bright]

Christian Kamm wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> I should add that 'naked' is for people who don't mind getting intimate
>> with how the compiler arranges things. Any code using it should expect
>> it to not be portable, and be past the compiler wagging its finger at
>> them.
> 
> Here portable means 'portable between different compilers for the same
> architecture'? 
> 
> I'm wondering because I thought the point of specifying inline assembler was
> exactly to guarantee that kind of portability. So you would not consider a
> compiler that does not implement naked, or handles it differently from DMD
> to be breaking the D specification?

Since the stack prolog/epilog is not defined in the D ABI, a compiler is 
free to innovate in this area.

The reason to specify the inline assembler is to have a common ground on 
the assembler syntax.