D.gnu - Inline Assembler in GDC
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (14/14) Dec 26 2004 Q: How much work would adding asm { } mean ?
- David Friedman (13/39) Jan 01 2005 The easy part is translating opcode and register names. Other tasks
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (8/18) Jan 01 2005 Sounds like a good start! Usually one only adds a few snippets anyway...
- Simon Buchan (4/18) Jan 03 2005 Just out of curiosity, would running the asm block contents
- David Friedman (7/41) Jan 03 2005 GCC's output *is* and assembler file. So, in some sense, it's just a
Q: How much work would adding asm { } mean ?
In "theory" it should be able to translate D into
asm { } sections of the regular GCC, but I suppose
the syntax have to be massaged first, for the X86 ?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/iasm.html
As for PPC syntax, the D language spec doesn't even
mention the CPU :-(, so I guess anything goes there ?
(suggestion: using something very similar to GCC/gas)
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/Assembler/
Compiling the C and asm functions separately works as a
workaround in the meantime, so it's not really urgent...
--anders
PS. Just as the X86 assembly assumes a Pentium,
the PPC assembly can assume a G3 or above ?
Dec 26 2004
Anders F Björklund wrote:Q: How much work would adding asm { } mean ? In "theory" it should be able to translate D into asm { } sections of the regular GCC, but I suppose the syntax have to be massaged first, for the X86 ? http://www.digitalmars.com/d/iasm.htmlThe easy part is translating opcode and register names. Other tasks are: parsing expressions, determining the operand size and addressing mode, evaluating type/variable expressions, etc. The DMD sources don't include the code to do any of this. A temporary shortcut would be to pass as much as the expression as possible on to the assembler and let it determine what is valid.As for PPC syntax, the D language spec doesn't even mention the CPU :-(, so I guess anything goes there ? (suggestion: using something very similar to GCC/gas) http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/Assembler/Or the CodeWarrior-style asm blocks that Apple added to GCC. In fact, I can probably use some of that code.Compiling the C and asm functions separately works as a workaround in the meantime, so it's not really urgent... --anders PS. Just as the X86 assembly assumes a Pentium, the PPC assembly can assume a G3 or above ?Ideally, the whole range of RS/6000 and PowerPC CPUs should be supported. I don't think there is that much difference between them, though. David
Jan 01 2005
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> David Friedman wrote:A temporary shortcut would be to pass as much as the expression as possible on to the assembler and let it determine what is valid.Sounds like a good start! Usually one only adds a few snippets anyway... Can it be fed into the usual GCC assembly processor, by any chance ?Or the CodeWarrior-style asm blocks that Apple added to GCC. In fact, I can probably use some of that code.asm { } blocks would be the preferred result, I think. One can always switch to separate .s files, if larger assembly blocks are needed ?Just meant if it's a shortcut to ignore the POWER 601 opcodes and 603, then by all means focus on the modern processors instead ? (AltiVec ?) --andersPS. Just as the X86 assembly assumes a Pentium, the PPC assembly can assume a G3 or above ?Ideally, the whole range of RS/6000 and PowerPC CPUs should be supported. I don't think there is that much difference between them, though.
Jan 01 2005
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:57:56 +0100, Anders F Björklund <afb algonet.se> wrote:
Q: How much work would adding asm { } mean ?
In "theory" it should be able to translate D into
asm { } sections of the regular GCC, but I suppose
the syntax have to be massaged first, for the X86 ?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/iasm.html
As for PPC syntax, the D language spec doesn't even
mention the CPU :-(, so I guess anything goes there ?
(suggestion: using something very similar to GCC/gas)
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/Assembler/
Compiling the C and asm functions separately works as a
workaround in the meantime, so it's not really urgent...
--anders
PS. Just as the X86 assembly assumes a Pentium,
the PPC assembly can assume a G3 or above ?
Just out of curiosity, would running the asm block contents
through an external assembler, then putting the output back
as an __emit__ block not be feasable? (OK, symbols, etc...)
Jan 03 2005
Simon Buchan wrote:On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:57:56 +0100, Anders F Björklund <afb algonet.se> wrote:GCC's output *is* and assembler file. So, in some sense, it's just a matter of writting the inline asm code to the output. The compiler still has to parse each assembler statement to find variables and replace them with stack offsets, mangled symbol names, etc. Also, for X86, Intel syntax needs to be translated to GAS syntax. DavidQ: How much work would adding asm { } mean ? In "theory" it should be able to translate D into asm { } sections of the regular GCC, but I suppose the syntax have to be massaged first, for the X86 ? http://www.digitalmars.com/d/iasm.html As for PPC syntax, the D language spec doesn't even mention the CPU :-(, so I guess anything goes there ? (suggestion: using something very similar to GCC/gas) http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/Assembler/ Compiling the C and asm functions separately works as a workaround in the meantime, so it's not really urgent... --anders PS. Just as the X86 assembly assumes a Pentium, the PPC assembly can assume a G3 or above ?Just out of curiosity, would running the asm block contents through an external assembler, then putting the output back as an __emit__ block not be feasable? (OK, symbols, etc...)
Jan 03 2005