GDC review process.

[Jesse Phillips]

On Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 18:19:01 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

> 1) D Inline Asm and naked function support is raising far too 
> many alarm bells. So would just be easier to remove it and 
> avoid all the other comments on why we need middle-end and 
> backend headers in gdc.

I'll give my opinion. I have yet to write some x86 assembly and 
only have anticipations of playing around in it, so take this 
with as much force as you desire.

D specifies inline ASM, I don't see this GCC submission dictating 
its removal. So I think it would be best to actually support D.

Now, the way you phrase this statement it sounds like it will be 
harder to get through the review and as there might be many 
changes to get the ASM support through. In which case I think 
postponing inline ASM support to get through an initial review 
and approval is fine. But it should be considered only temporary 
and should get approval based on the knowledge inline ASM will be 
coming.

The other items do not appear relevant to supporting the D 
specification, and we are halfway to DigitalMars not supporting a 
D1 compiler.