On 19 June 2012 19:51, Alex Rønne Petersen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19-06-2012 20:44, bearophile wrote: >> >> Iain Buclaw: >> >>> Most discussion I would imagine be on the decision to remove D inline >>> assembler support from gdc. So, nay sayers, do your worst, but >>> unfortunately there is a +1 here for removal. >> >> >> I suggest to try to do the opposite, that it to try to increase >> the current conformance of GDC to D/DMD specs (like introducing D >> calling conventions, if they are missing). >> >> Bye, >> bearophile > > > Not gonna happen. The D calling convention is Windows/32-bit only. > Implementing a new calling convention in all major compiler back ends is not > something you do trivially. Further, I doubt the GCC maintainers would > actually approve of doing this. >
To quote from one of the i386 backend maintainers: --- "Does D *really* require a new calling convention? Also does it *really* require naked support? I think naked support is a bad idea and people who require naked support should be writing an assembly function wrapper." --- -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
