On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Walter Bright <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7/31/2012 10:02 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >> >> >> Not so. It would make it worse (read: less portable and less >> performant) than writing C. >> > > I think this is a bit unfair - the C semantics you're talking about are > specific to one compiler. They are not standard, and such has been a source > of non-portable trouble in the C community.
Strictly speaking, yes, you can only rely on GCC implementing the GCC semantics. But in practice, LLVM/Clang does too (since they want to be a GCC drop-in replacement). I'd expect other compilers in the wild to also follow this definition since GCC is the major compiler in the Unix world. But writing kernel space code in purely standard C is a pipe dream. I've always liked to think of D as a more pragmatic version of C/C++ that recognizes that supporting obscure platforms from 40 years ago might not be so important anymore. > > Nevertheless, you do have a good point about what should be specified as > being part of the D standard. Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
