On 20 June 2012 21:16, Alex Rønne Petersen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20-06-2012 21:48, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >> >> On 20/06/12 20:35, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >>> >>> And x86 inline assembler... on ARM? I don't think I follow. >> >> >> If I understand http://dlang.org/iasm.html correctly, the idea is that D >> should have an inline assembler for each target architecture. >> >> AFAICS what's desired is that you should be able to insert >> >> asm >> { >> // target-specific assembly goes here >> } >> >> .... and have it accepted by _any_ D compiler. That seems to me to be an >> >> important part of the language in general and even more so on >> architectures that are suited to embedded systems. So while it may make >> sense to cut the inline assembly in the short term for GDC, it doesn't >> make sense to me for it to be a change that lasts. > > > GDC currently supports x86, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC, and possibly others. > The language reference lists assembly syntax for x86. I understand that in > an ideal world, we'd have standardized assembly syntaxes for all of these > architectures, but somebody has to actually spec and implement them. > > Besides, Iain has already pointed out that the x86 syntax in the spec > doesn't integrate with GCC's inline assembly support at all (which is why > GDC had the glue code for it). It took around 2000 lines (if memory serves) > to translate the D inline assembly to GCC inline assembly. Now imagine > having to do this for every architecture ever supported. >
More closer to 4000 lines, and the current implementation is in no state to be able to add more architechtures into the mix. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
