On 15 July 2014 22:57, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 7/15/2014 2:17 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote: >> >> Well as long as those priorities are clearly communicated. If you tell >> me 'we don't care about embedded programming' then I'll shut up and move >> back to C. > > > Rest assured we definitely do care about embedded systems programming. > > > >> But 'D is a systems programming language for low level tasks' and 'we >> don't want to introduce a type qualifier for low level programming, but >> @nogc is just fine' don't go together. This leaves all contributors and >> devs hoping to see D on embedded systems in uncertainty. > > > It isn't about whether we want to introduce a type qualifier for low level > programming or not. It is about what is the best solution for MMIO for low > level programming. > > Note that D already supports inp() and outp() as compiler intrinsics, adding > peek() and poke() will complement them nicely: > > http://dlang.org/phobos/core_bitop.html#.inp
s/D/DMD/ GDC doesn't support it as compiler intrinsics. Also, isn't inp/outp all x86-specific? I've never come across a similar thing in other architectures (at least, of the same name)