Am Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:34:17 -0800 schrieb "H. S. Teoh" <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:30:21PM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote: > [...] > > Maybe the best way to fix this issue is to follow what other > > language standards do (C++, Ada) and only define that inline > > assembly is possible and how the entry point, e.g. asm () looks > > like. > > > > The real inline assembly syntax is then left implementation > > specific. > > But isn't this what Walter was arguing against? He wanted to standardize > inline assembly syntax for x86 because leaving it up to implementation > resulted in the current mess of Intel syntax vs. GNU syntax (which can > be extremely confusing if you're not well-versed in both syntaxes, since > the order of operands are swapped and there are some subtle notational > differences). > > > T I for one am in favor of not having to write an ASM function 6 times for x86/amd64 * dmd/ldc/gdc. Before that happens I write a mixin generator that translates takes a string of ASM instructions and converts it to all three syntaxes at once. -- Marco