Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> writes: > On 4 October 2011 20:36, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >>> These patches address two areas of the D language: >>> 1) D calling convention. >>> 2) Naked functions on i386 and x86_64 >>> >>> Some work would need to be done on naked functions at least first so >>> that changes required are only to gcc/config. I would be grateful if I >>> could get pointed in the right direction for implementing naked as a >>> function attribute for i386 so all frontends could benefit. >> >> Does D really require a new calling convention? Also does it really >> require naked support? I think naked support is a bad idea and people >> who require naked support should be writing an assembly function >> wrapper. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrew Pinski >> > > Naked functions are part of the D spec, and I would have to remove a > few areas of the D runtime library if they were to go (I may get a > number emails from D users too asking where it has gone). > > The D calling convention is one thing I can cope just fine without. It > is needed more for use with some naked functions in the D runtime > library. The major quirk of the D ABI really is that routines will > return floating point return values on the FPU stack, and expects this > to be cleaned off by the caller, even if they are not used. I can > instead fix the D runtime library if it is that much of a problem.
I don't personally have a problem with naked function support. If it is part of the D language I think it is reasonable to add it to gcc backends. This will presumably require some new target hook to see if the functionality is available. Using a different ABI for ordinary functions seem at first glance to be a mistake, because it hurts interoperability with code not written in D. I guess if this is implemented it would require some other target hook. Ian
