On 12/13/13 11:07 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 20:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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.
LDC in fact implements DMD-style inline assembly (occasionally there are bugs,
though, as it's a
complete reimplementation).
I don't think it would be unreasonable to work towards a common D ABI on the
various Posix x86_64
systems, but given that DMD comes with its own bespoke exception handling
implementation which
doesn't really make sense to implement in GDC/LDC (as libunwind is the platform
standard on Linux/…
anyway), there is not really much motivation to start work on aligning the
other parts of the ABI
either.
David
I think it's very important to work towards a common D ABI. Even further, I believe it's important
for druntime and phobos to be binary compatible between the compilers. That dmd uses a different eh
scheme is more a factor of Walter not understanding the standard linux c++ eh mechanism well enough
to implement it and instead took the path of least resistance and wrote his own. This is very
correctable, just needs someone to do it.
