Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[Walter Bright]

On 12/14/2013 6:08 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> The implementation of which existed in GDC first, and was released as
> dual GPL/BSD license to allow into LDC devs to use and improve (they
> added 64bit assembler support for instance, years before DMD got 64bit
> support),

I didn't know this, thanks for telling me.

> and then subsequently dropped from GDC for a number of valid
> reasons:
>
> 1) Transition towards making a platform/target agnostic frontend implementation.
>
> 2) Don't and will never implement the DMD-style calling convention, so
> all inline assembly in druntime and phobos actually doesn't work with
> GDC - there's actually a bug report about GDC incorrectly pre-defining
> D_InlineAsm and friends because of this.

dmd's works on multiple platforms and uses version statements to account for ABI 
differences. It's still easier than having a different syntax.


> 3) It is a really big WAT on having two conflicting styles, one for
> x86, another for everything else.

gcc gets them wrong for everything else, too :-)


> 4) This and other x86 hacks were a problem with code reviewers from GCC.

I can understand that.

> Though saying that, whilst DMD-style was not ideal, neither is
> GDC-style either, as it requires parser changes, and adds a new class
> to handle them in the frontend.
>