On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 17:44:03 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:
> The other
> would be to templatize D's inline assembler?

Templatize D's inline assembler? Do you mean using compiler intrinsics in place of raw inline assembly?

David

On 25-04-2012 20:41, CTFE-4-the-win wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 17:51:45 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> Introducing a commen calling convention would be one approach. The other
>>> would be to templatize D's inline assembler?
>>
>> All the big compiler back ends are not realistically going to
>> implement some random calling convention because we tell them to.
>
> Hmmm... actually, only the symbols marked with 'export' would matter, we
> could have our own super optimized calling convention internally... no?
>

export doesn't currently do anything anywhere but on Windows, and it seems like this situation won't change for some time.

-- 
- Alex

On 25-04-2012 20:48, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 17:44:03 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:
>> The other
>> would be to templatize D's inline assembler?
>
> Templatize D's inline assembler? Do you mean using compiler intrinsics
> in place of raw inline assembly?
>
> David

Or perhaps use template arguments to carry info about the calling convention... I'm not sure what was meant either, but it seems like it would be a hack at best.

-- 
- Alex

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 21:01:39 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> export doesn't currently do anything anywhere but on Windows, and it seems like this situation won't change for some time.

And I hope that it never does. I hate export with a passion.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 14:32:13 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> You're missing the point. D is providing (or trying to provide) a standard inline assembler, but calling conventions are not standardized enough for it to be useful across compilers. If you're writing inline assembly because you *have* to, you don't just "version it out", you have to write different logic for different compilers, which is a maintenance nightmare.

Don't implement complex logic in assembly, extract it to D or C code.

On 26-04-2012 13:37, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 14:32:13 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> You're missing the point. D is providing (or trying to provide) a
>> standard inline assembler, but calling conventions are not
>> standardized enough for it to be useful across compilers. If you're
>> writing inline assembly because you *have* to, you don't just "version
>> it out", you have to write different logic for different compilers,
>> which is a maintenance nightmare.
>
> Don't implement complex logic in assembly, extract it to D or C code.

Look, your argument is just plain invalid. Please reread what I said: "[...] If you're writing inline assembly because you *have* to [...]". Notice the emphasis. And even if we disregarded that, the language boasts a standardized inline assembler, and therefore needs to actually make it sane to use it. As it stands, we're no better than C and C++, yet we claim we are.

-- 
- Alex