Inline ASM?

[ghost]

DMD provides inline ASM. Can't we use that instead of needing a separate assembler and linker? We've already patched up DMD. Am I missing something?

[Vild]

The inline assembly doesn't contain all features that a fully implemented assembler has. DMD has a custom assembler language as well.
For example it can't handle outputting 16bit or 32bit code while compiling for 64bit, it is only good for small generic thing, nothing else.

DMD doesn't have a linker built in it uses the systems linker, so PowerNex requires a crosscompiled linker.
I maybe need to read up on some osdev stuff https://wiki.osdev.org/Why_do_I_need_a_Cross_Compiler%3F

[ghost]

If (or when) you switch to LDC, it supports extended ASM that can handle much more than the DMD inline ASM.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:55 AM Dan Printzell ***@***.***> wrote: The inline assembly doesn't contain all features that a fully implemented assembler has. DMD has a custom assembler language as well. For example it can't handle outputting 16bit or 32bit code while compiling for 64bit, it is only good for small generic thing, nothing else. DMD doesn't have a linker built in it uses the systems linker, so PowerNex requires a crosscompiled linker. I maybe need to read up on some osdev stuff https://wiki.osdev.org/Why_do_I_need_a_Cross_Compiler%3F — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#78 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARILTt-w36rPWxgRKvpZ3-S3rt-EVwejks5sl3h7gaJpZM4PiNdL> .

-- AK

[Vild]

Inline assembly is never an alternative to a real assembler.
It is only a complement, for example I will never write init*.S as inline assembler.
Because to my knowledge LLVM/LDC doesn't support outputting 16bit or 32bit code while compiling for 64bit.

I will probably never switch to LDC, I want to add support for it, but DMD will always be the first class citizen of PowerNex.