On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 00:49:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2014 2:28 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 2 July 2014 19:58, via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't really understand the reasoning here. Is D Intel x86
specific?
Yes it is, more than you might realise. I've been spending
the last 4
years breaking it to be platform agnostic. :o)
I think you're conflating dmd with D.
And IEEE 754 is a standard.
I understand what you're saying here, which is that any
conflation of D with x86 is a fault in the implementation rather
than the spec, but at the end of the day, D lives by its
implementation.
It's not just about what the dmd backend supports per se, but
about what assumptions that leads people to make when writing
code for the frontend, runtime and standard library. Iain has
done some heroic work in the last year going through compiler
frontend, runtime and Phobos and correcting code with faulty
assumptions such as "real == 80 bit floating point" (which IIRC
was often made as a general assumption even though it's
x86-specific).
