View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Don Clugston
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 91 Location: Germany (expat Australian)
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: A link that may be useful for DDL |
|
|
Although it's C++ -centric, you may find some useful info here. The calling conventions article has extensive detail on gcc, which may be relevant for DDL.
http://www.agner.org/assem/
I've just been in contact with Agner, and he mentioned that he's trying to get shared libraries to work between Linux and Windows -- similar in many ways to DDL. Exception handling and the padding of 80-bit reals are still the only two known differences between Linux32 and Windows32.
-Don. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pragma
Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 607 Location: Washington, DC
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, that's a great resource Don. When I get to finishing up the ELF support for DDL, that may come in pretty handy - that way I'm not going to be as prone to making assumptions about the binary layout.
Honestly, I'm a bit dissapointed in Walter's decision in not extending the ABI down this far into the compiler. It makes sense from the standpoint of maintaining link-level compatibility with C++ libraries, but in a 100? D toolchain, its just more baggage.
Quote: | I've just been in contact with Agner, and he mentioned that he's trying to get shared libraries to work between Linux and Windows -- similar in many ways to DDL. Exception handling and the padding of 80-bit reals are still the only two known differences between Linux32 and Windows32. |
(relevant link: http://www.agner.org/assem/calling_conventions.pdf)
I see what you're talking about. He's calling for a few things to be standardized on the C++ side of things that D already has - name mangling and a strong(er) ABI for example. Anyway, I'm seriously going to have to ask him a few things once I ready to try and try this again after DDL1.0.
What's interesting is that he mentions that the 64 bit ABI's are much stronger than those that came before it. I wonder: if the D community were to draft a *really strong* ABI at the 64-bit level, could it pave the way for the remainder of these incompatibilities to become irrelevant? Since you can't mix 32 and 64 bit code directly, changing the exception hooks and padding would simply come along in the thunking layer - something that people will be trying to avoid anyway. _________________ -- !Eric.t.Anderton at gmail |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|