https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13589
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara <[email protected]> --- (In reply to yebblies from comment #3) > I don't agree with the rest of the proposal. Asm statements are fairly > infrequent and are rather dangerous, so I don't think the overhead of having > to explicitly attribute them is too much. They're usually nothrow, but > purity and safety are not such a given. It could be more serious. If someone want to write a kernel code with D, mixing inline assembler and regular D code may be painful. It would be a serious flaw against the goal "D is a system language". > And templated functions often have attributes inferred, and then you'd have > to mark the asm blocks by hand. This will be inconsistent. Yes, in template functions, asm with attributes is still useful. > Grepping phobos shows ~ less than 100 asm statements, mostly in math and > bigint functions. I don't think use of asm statements is prolific enough to > trade explicitly guaranteeing attributes hold for less redundancy. It is case by case. *In phobos*, it is less than 100 asm, but we would already have large code base we are unknown. I believe D will be a widespread language, so we should imagine the quite big use cases even they are not visible. --
