On 10 January 2012 23:38, Artur Skawina wrote:
> On 01/11/12 00:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 10 January 2012 19:49, Artur Skawina wrote:
I have porting the runtime/phobos asms to gcc asm on my to-do list, will
try to get to that within two weeks. What would be the preferred way -
v
On 01/11/12 00:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 19:49, Artur Skawina wrote:
>>> I have porting the runtime/phobos asms to gcc asm on my to-do list, will
>>> try to get to that within two weeks. What would be the preferred way -
>>> version() guards? if yes - what version? Or would you p
On 10 January 2012 19:49, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> I have porting the runtime/phobos asms to gcc asm on my to-do list, will
>> try to get to that within two weeks. What would be the preferred way -
>> version() guards? if yes - what version? Or would you prefer replacing
>> the asms, if the changes
> I have porting the runtime/phobos asms to gcc asm on my to-do list, will
> try to get to that within two weeks. What would be the preferred way -
> version() guards? if yes - what version? Or would you prefer replacing
> the asms, if the changes are not going to be merged upstream anyway?
So i
