• M <M_member pathlink.com> Sep 15 2004
• Deja Augustine <deja scratch-ware.net> Sep 15 2004
• "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> Sep 15 2004
• Deja Augustine <deja scratch-ware.net> Sep 15 2004
• John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> Sep 16 2004
• Charles <Charles_member pathlink.com> Sep 15 2004
• Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Sep 24 2004
• John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> Sep 25 2004

M <M_member pathlink.com> writes:

Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code?

Thank you!

Deja Augustine <deja scratch-ware.net> writes:

M wrote:

 Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code?
 
 Thank you!
 
 


Yes, use an asm block.  Look in the D documentation under the Inline 
Assembler topic.

-Deja

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:

The DMD compiler doesn't but one can run obj2asm (or dumpobj or something
like that) on the object code to get some asm.
The GDC compiler should have a flag to output asm - gcc works by generating
assembly and then calling the assembler to generate the object code.

"M" <M_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:ci9glf$1a93$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code?

 Thank you!

Deja Augustine <deja scratch-ware.net> writes:

Ben Hinkle wrote:

 The DMD compiler doesn't but one can run obj2asm (or dumpobj or something
 like that) on the object code to get some asm.
 The GDC compiler should have a flag to output asm - gcc works by generating
 assembly and then calling the assembler to generate the object code.
 
 "M" <M_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:ci9glf$1a93$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code?

Thank you!


 
 


Ah, misunderstood the question :)

-Deja

John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:

Ben Hinkle wrote:
 The DMD compiler doesn't but one can run obj2asm (or dumpobj or something
 like that) on the object code to get some asm.
 The GDC compiler should have a flag to output asm - gcc works by generating
 assembly and then calling the assembler to generate the object code.


RE: gcc

Really?!  Isn't that a tremendous waste of time?  Perhaps that's why gcc 
is so slow!  :-(

Charles <Charles_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ci9qil$1fdo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
Ben Hinkle wrote:
 The DMD compiler doesn't but one can run obj2asm (or dumpobj or something
 like that) on the object code to get some asm.
 The GDC compiler should have a flag to output asm - gcc works by generating
 assembly and then calling the assembler to generate the object code.


RE: gcc

Really?!  Isn't that a tremendous waste of time?  Perhaps that's why gcc 
is so slow!  :-(


Its also probably why its so portable ;).  GCC has a weird lisp looking
intermediate code, not your traditonal asm.

Charlie

Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:

John Reimer schrieb:

 RE: gcc
 
 Really?!  Isn't that a tremendous waste of time?  Perhaps that's why gcc 
 is so slow!  :-(


Yes, it is a waste of time. But not as tremendous as one might think. It 
has been one of its basic decisions for portability. LCC also works this 
way, even the fairly fast LCC-Win32 internally generates a text assembly 
file and then parses it again. But parsing assembly is not very time 
consuming, especially if you know that it's well formed - and gcc uses that.

Transferring an assembly file between the compiler and the assembler has 
a different overhead depending on the system. On Windows, it is a 
separate step, while on Unices it is just streamed through so it goes 
quite nicely.

At every possible point GCC designers favored flexibility, target code 
performance and ultimate portability, to the disadvantage on compiling 
speed. So no wonder it is slow. :) Besides, it's single-pass - i don't 
know what it's good for these days, perhaps it becomes one of the problems.

-eye

John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:

Ilya Minkov wrote:
 John Reimer schrieb:
 
 RE: gcc

 Really?!  Isn't that a tremendous waste of time?  Perhaps that's why 
 gcc is so slow!  :-(


 
 Yes, it is a waste of time. But not as tremendous as one might think. It 
 has been one of its basic decisions for portability. LCC also works this 
 way, even the fairly fast LCC-Win32 internally generates a text assembly 
 file and then parses it again. But parsing assembly is not very time 
 consuming, especially if you know that it's well formed - and gcc uses 
 that.
 
 Transferring an assembly file between the compiler and the assembler has 
 a different overhead depending on the system. On Windows, it is a 
 separate step, while on Unices it is just streamed through so it goes 
 quite nicely.
 
 At every possible point GCC designers favored flexibility, target code 
 performance and ultimate portability, to the disadvantage on compiling 
 speed. So no wonder it is slow. :) Besides, it's single-pass - i don't 
 know what it's good for these days, perhaps it becomes one of the problems.
 
 -eye


Thanks! That explains it well.