Can we kill the D calling convention already?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 24 April 2012 17:05, Erik Jensen <eriksjunk at rkjnsn.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 April 2012 at 14:40:05 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 24 April 2012 11:29, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24-04-2012 11:42, Kagamin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking about GDC, you can't link to omf files directly - so there
>>>> shouldn't be any binary incompatibility.
>>>> If the assembler code is unportable across compilers, it's a developer's
>>>> mistake or intention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is just that: Right now I can write assembly that will work on
>>> GDC, LDC, and DMD on non-Windows. It will not work for DMD on Windows.
>>> Something has to change here.
>>>
>>> You're missing the point if you think this is a "developer mistake".
>>>
>>
>> Is not just Windows, the DMD calling convention on Linux differs from
>> the system calling convention.  For example, some of the naked
>> functions in std.math returning floating point values assumes caller
>> clean up.  Where as the C calling convention is callee clean up.
>
>
> That is incorrect. The cdecl calling convention is caller clean-up (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions). Otherwise, variable
> argument functions would not be possible (the called function doesn't know
> what to clean up).
>
>

I forget which, but I'm pretty certain the CDecl calling convention
does not call 'ret PARAMSIZE;'  when returning floats. =)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';