Le 20/06/2012 18:40, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
On 20 June 2012 17:23, deadalnix<[email protected]> wrote:
Le 20/06/2012 18:18, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
On 20 June 2012 17:00, Brad Anderson<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Iain Buclaw<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Had round one of the code review process, so I'm going to post the main
issues here that most affect D users / the platforms they want to run on
/
the compiler version they want to use.
1) D Inline Asm and naked function support is raising far too many alarm
bells. So would just be easier to remove it and avoid all the other
comments
on why we need middle-end and backend headers in gdc.
2) Code with #if V1 and V2 raised another bell with the request to
remove
all code that relies on internal macros with proper if() conditions. If
something is always going to be turned off, remove it.
So, we shall also be saying bye bye D1 in GDC. We'll miss you!
3) For anyone who has submitted patches for Mingw and Apple - sorry, but
I'm going to have to yank out or alter certain bits. Apple GCC is
irrelevant now, and some Mingw checks look for if(target) when it should
really be checking if(host) and vice versa!
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.
Regards
Iain
I'm very much outside of my area of understanding but would it be
possible
to use CTFE+mixin to generate GCC asm from DMD style asm allowing people
to
still use a single version of the asm for both DMD and GDC?
Regards,
Brad Anderson
Hmm... doable, yes, but it would require a similarly complex construct
as the implementation in the compiler. GCC Assembler is much more
expressive than D Inline Assembler, and requires for you to describe
everything a given asm command is doing, inputs, outputs, clobbers,
and labels that we may jump to (if any). The only thing I worry is
that CTFE is not powerful enough process a long set of instructions at
a fast enough rate to make it benefitial.
Can't gdc frontend process asm to gcc's asm and go from that ?
It's what we did, but there's a lot of information that we require
about, eg: the function frame pointer, that is not available to the
frontend when trying to re-create just exactly what the assembly code
is requiring us to do.
So, how does the programer is supposed to handle that when writing gcc's
asm ?
