Am Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:46:26 -0800 schrieb Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com>:
> On 12/12/2013 12:33 PM, Max Samukha wrote: > > Don't you find it somewhat alarming that both alternative compilers follow > > neither the standard inline asm nor ABI? > > I find it unfortunate. But it also can be difficult and time consuming to > reimplement an assembler for those back ends, so I can understand why it > isn't a > priority. It's not just that. I found that some discussion and work is necessary about these issues, if D is ever going to have a standard inline assembly language: * GCC would have to support naked functions on x86/amd64 or DMD drop the keyword. * DMD would have to adapt extended inline assembly expressions or the GDC/LDC "downgrade" to basic inline assembly. A "downgrade" needs good arguments though. Not only did D evolve over C, but the same is true for inline assembly. From http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_assembly_expressions: Being an expression, extended inline expressions are able to return values! Additionally issues regarding inlining of function containing inline asm are mostly not relevant for extended inline assembly expressions. Effectively, extended inline assembly expression can be used to efficiently implement new intrinsics in the compiler. -- Marco
