shiner wrote:
fixed
.
Thanks! If I weren't lazy \ busy, I would have done that myself. Verification of that issue is here:
PittGeeks.org. This was already referred in the topic, and this was our group, so I can personally confirm.
On a new note, the XOmB crew are working alongside the LDC crew. We have been their advisers on what is necessary for kernel work in D, within the D language spec. They have heeded us! They were missing the 'naked' attribute for inline assembly (which is QUITE necessary for kernel dev! especially when you want to define mixins for assembly routines for efficiency of computer time and coding time!)
Long story short, they are already working on implementing 'naked' for us and say it is in the testing stage. Soon, we can dump gdc for ldc. <strong opinion>YAY</strong opinion> Since we are working alongside them, they have been providing the builds, but I will take up the task of learning the process to build an LDC cross-compiler, and will personally write the wiki article.
For anyone interested, the differences between GDC and LDC are simply put: LDC is closer to the true D spec. Where it deviates is typically on the case of a compiler bug and inline assembly. Instead of the GAS syntax used in gcc, ldc uses the Intel syntax.
It is also maintained...by several people! It is also BSD licensed, if that is a concern.
I think you might be able to use the "-masm=intel" flag to at least keep some portability in gdc, but it will still be a little different (mixins could allow some transparency). Don't quote me on it, though. But, hey, if it is possible and you don't want to have to spend a weekend switching operands (like ME), it might be better to just use the Intel syntax to begin with. I was going to do it last weekend, but I live in Pittsburgh