On 6/19/2012 6:06 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 20-06-2012 03:01, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/19/2012 3:47 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 19-06-2012 23:52, Walter Bright wrote:
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.
The ABI is not part of the language. For example, the C Standard says
nothing whatsoever about the C ABI.
Then it's very misleading that it's under the language reference area of the
website and calls it the "D ABI" and not the "DMD ABI". This might have been
fine back when there was only DMD, but it really needs to be made clear that
this is not an ABI that compilers are required to follow.
You're probably right.
Further, D mangling rules should be separate from calling convention.
I disagree. The mangling rules are not part of the language
specification, either. But they are necessary so that a function with
one convention won't be connected to one with another.
If compilers employed their own mangling schemes, debuggers and other tools
would never be able to properly demangle names. I think it is important that the
mangling is at least emphasized as a highly recommended (but not required) part
of the language to implementors.
I don't think we need to worry about that. Implementers tend to follow existing
practice unless there is a very, very good reason.
