Should compilers take advantage (abuse) of the new UDA syntax that has been accepted?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 18 December 2012 21:36, Artur Skawina <art.08.09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/18/12 21:33, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> >  b) No one infact uses GDC (go figure!).
>
> > Similarly, no one has noticed that most of the pragma GDC supported have
> mysterious vanished either.  The ones left at kept only for gcc.builtins
> support until a time I re-implement the attributes in a better way that I
> haven't decided on yet (hence why raising this thread).
>
> See above - that's one thing that became completely clear after I first
> tried GDC and
> filed the ~third gdc bugreport... Right now the situation is even worse,
> as dealing
> with an experimental language is enough - having to also work with an
> unstable
> compiler is not a practical option. If gdc is upstreamed hopefully some
> users will
> return and new ones will come.
>
>
A lot of these erratic changes stems from code in GDC written during
gcc-3.3 / gcc-3.4 era when GCC frontends typically could include ties to a
particular backend, or when useful parts of the backend could be fleshed
out to the frontend and didn't depend on the frontend language being part
of the C family.

What's left is a fair amount of duplicated code between GDC and GCC (C/C++
front-end's) code base, which core devs don't like.  TARGET macros in GDC,
which core devs especially don't like.  And a balancing act between keeping
the cool features GDC *could* do in the past and what GDC *should* do in
the future to ensure that the frontend should generate code agnostic to any
platform or architecture, pushing out things that can't be done in any
other way into gcc-proper.

Though things have been pretty stable since October... not for long though
as I plan to do another huge face lift in the new year. :-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20121218/893dba5e/attachment-0001.html>