GDC review process.

[Bernard Helyer]

On Wednesday, 20 June 2012 at 02:35:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 6:06 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 20-06-2012 03:01, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2012 3:47 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>>> On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> GDC can certainly define its D calling convention to match 
>>>>> GCC's. It's
>>>>> an "implementation defined" thing, not a language defined 
>>>>> one.
>>>> Then let's please rename it to the DMD ABI instead of 
>>>> calling it the D
>>>> ABI
>>>> and
>>>> making it look like it's part of the language on the website.
>>>
>>> The ABI is not part of the language. For example, the C 
>>> Standard says
>>> nothing whatsoever about the C ABI.
>>
>> Then it's very misleading that it's under the language 
>> reference area of the
>> website and calls it the "D ABI" and not the "DMD ABI". This 
>> might have been
>> fine back when there was only DMD, but it really needs to be 
>> made clear that
>> this is not an ABI that compilers are required to follow.
>
> You're probably right.

He's definitely right. To have the mangling rules on the same 
page as the ABI and then act confused when people think it's part 
of the language? I was sputtering with rage. Sputtering!