digitalmars.D - D -> ASM
- M (2/2) Sep 15 2004 Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code?
- Deja Augustine (4/9) Sep 15 2004 Yes, use an asm block. Look in the D documentation under the Inline
- Ben Hinkle (6/8) Sep 15 2004 The DMD compiler doesn't but one can run obj2asm (or dumpobj or somethin...
- Deja Augustine (3/19) Sep 15 2004 Ah, misunderstood the question :)
- John Reimer (4/8) Sep 16 2004 RE: gcc
- Charles (4/12) Sep 15 2004 Its also probably why its so portable ;). GCC has a weird lisp looking
- Ilya Minkov (15/19) Sep 24 2004 Yes, it is a waste of time. But not as tremendous as one might think. It...
- John Reimer (2/28) Sep 25 2004 Thanks! That explains it well.
Is it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code? Thank you!
Sep 15 2004
Deja Augustine <deja scratch-ware.net> 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
Sep 15 2004
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!
Sep 15 2004
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...Ah, misunderstood the question :) -DejaIs it possible to tell the dmd comiler to output assembler code? Thank you!
Sep 15 2004
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! :-(
Sep 16 2004
In article <ci9qil$1fdo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...Ben Hinkle wrote:Its also probably why its so portable ;). GCC has a weird lisp looking intermediate code, not your traditonal asm. CharlieThe 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! :-(
Sep 15 2004
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
Sep 24 2004
Ilya Minkov wrote:John Reimer schrieb:Thanks! That explains it well.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
Sep 25 2004