On 20-06-2012 02:58, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/20/2012 02:04 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 20-06-2012 01:55, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/20/2012 12:47 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/19/2012 1:36 PM, bearophile wrote:
No, but the idea was to allow D to innovate on calling
conventions without disturbing code that needed to
interface with C.
The idea is nice, but ideas aren't enough. Where are the benchmarks
that show a
performance improvement over the C calling convention? And even if
such
improvement is present, is it worth it in the face of people that
don't want to
add it to GCC?
GDC can certainly define its D calling convention to match GCC's. It's
an "implementation defined" thing, not a language defined one.
Then let's please rename it to the DMD ABI instead of calling it the D
ABI and making it look like it's part of the language on the website.
Further, D mangling rules should be separate from calling convention.
IIRC currently, the calling convention is mangled into the symbol name.
Do you want to remove this?
Not that I can see from http://dlang.org/abi.html ?
TypeFunction:
CallConvention FuncAttrs Arguments ArgClose Type
CallConvention:
F // D
U // C
W // Windows
V // Pascal
R // C++
I see. I think it's a mistake to call that calling convention "D". I'm
not against removing it, but the description is highly misleading.
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
a...@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
