narrowed down the problem area [naked asm]

[Christian Kamm]

>>> 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.
>> 
>> Christian Kamm wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. We'll not worry about it too much then -
though I think that from the conversation with Don, Tomas now has a good
idea of what we'd need to do for them to behave similarly.