On 6 January 2012 00:10, Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> wrote: > The reasoning behind is more so that you can write asm statements on > all architectures, not just x86. And with GDC being a frontend of GCC, > seems a natural thing to support (this has actually been in GDC since > 2004, so I'm not sure why you should through all arms up about it > now).
When I was first reading about D I read that the inline assembler syntax is built in and standardised in the language... and I gave a large sigh of relief. If that's not the case, there are competing asm syntax in D, well... that sucks. Am I version-ing my asm blocks for DMD and GDC now like I have to in C for VC and GCC? Surely D should settle on just one... If that happens to be the GCC syntax for compatibility, great...?
