Walter, what new features can we expect to see in the next alpha?
It's been for quite a long, I just can't stand to wait more
to find out what new tasty things you've prepared for us there! =)

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a53n4v$2fvj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter, what new features can we expect to see in the next alpha?
> It's been for quite a long, I just can't stand to wait more
> to find out what new tasty things you've prepared for us there! =)

The main thing is the inline assembler. I can't just plug in the one from the C compiler, it works very differently due to the separation of the passes. The inline assembler is a mini-compiler in itself.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a545ik$2m0g$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> The main thing is the inline assembler. I can't just plug in the one from the C compiler, it works very differently due to the separation of the passes. The inline assembler is a mini-compiler in itself.

Anyhow, a great addition. I hope it'll have Intel syntax? =)

By the way, this is an interesting topic. Absence of proper asm
statement in C/C++ was a headache for those guys who wrote
fast multi-platform libraries with assembler insertions - like SDL
or GMP. This is not the only problem, still, because even on
i386 there are at least Intel and AT&T versions of syntax, which
results in a program, which would otherwise work perfectly, fail
to compile on other platform. Yes, there are convertors, but they
won't work that easily with inline assembler. Have you considered
adding some sort of "recommendation" (use Intel syntax for inline
assembler) to the specs?

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a55gk5$7mu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Anyhow, a great addition. I hope it'll have Intel syntax? =)

Of course. The gcc syntax hurts my brain.

> By the way, this is an interesting topic. Absence of proper asm
> statement in C/C++ was a headache for those guys who wrote
> fast multi-platform libraries with assembler insertions - like SDL
> or GMP. This is not the only problem, still, because even on
> i386 there are at least Intel and AT&T versions of syntax, which
> results in a program, which would otherwise work perfectly, fail
> to compile on other platform. Yes, there are convertors, but they
> won't work that easily with inline assembler. Have you considered
> adding some sort of "recommendation" (use Intel syntax for inline
> assembler) to the specs?

As much as possible, it will be standardized.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a561tc$cj$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> > Anyhow, a great addition. I hope it'll have Intel syntax? =)
>
> Of course. The gcc syntax hurts my brain.

Great, at last somebody who agrees with me on this one! =)