Hello,
Johan Engelen suggested I bring further attention to this issue
here in the D forums.
We need a version identifier for 16-bit code (e.g. to
conditionally define size_t correctly). This is not theoretical,
it's an actual need, since LDC essentially works for MSP430, even
though it isn't officially supported. I'm assuming that adding a
predefined version identifier isn't problematic, so the only
issue is how it should be named. Here's what I wrote on GitHub:
"I defined a version identifier for 16-bit code called D_P16, by
analogy with D_LP64. Now, D_LP64 was an awful name because it
means 64-bit in general and not C's LP64 in particular. I chose
D_P16 to mean pointers are 16-bit, but now I'm thinking if we
should just call it D_16. In theory we could have a Harvard
architecture where the native integer size is different from the
native pointer size. That's one argument in favor of D_P16.
Another argument would be consistency with D_LP64." -> but maybe
that's overcomplicating and D_16 suffices?
Bikeshed all the things! \o
- Luís
