• "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> Feb 21 2002
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Feb 21 2002
• "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> Feb 22 2002
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Feb 22 2002
• "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> Feb 22 2002

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

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! =)

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"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.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

"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?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"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.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

"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! =)