On 8 April 2017 at 18:48, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2017 1:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's
>>> inline
>>> assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.
>> That makes the assumption that license was the reason why it's not
>> included. ;-)
> Having an inline assembler is a lot less important than it used to be, so
> this is not a big issue. David also hinted that ldc wrote a work-alike, so
> this was likely an issue for them.

To make sure you have your history correct.  GDC wrote the work-alike
x86 assembler, and later dual-licensed it to share with LDC.  A little
while later I dropped it from GDC as it was not really fit for
purpose, and rather outside the scope of what I see should be handled
at the language level in the compiler.

Reply via email to