http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8185
--- Comment #34 from Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin....@gmail.com> 2012-06-04 19:08:08 MSD --- (In reply to comment #33) > (In reply to comment #32) > > That's correct. You should not expect *any* optimizations from weakly pure > > functions. The ONLY purpose of weakly pure functions is to increase the > > number > > of strongly pure functions. In all other respects, they are no different > > from > > an impure function. > > Const-pure functions invoked with immutable _arguments_ (even though > parameters > might only be const) can receive exactly the same amount of optimizations. > Even > if not implemented in DMD today (as are many other possible purity-related > optimizations), this is very useful, because otherwise functions would have to > accept immutable values just for the sake of optimization even though they > could work with const values just as well otherwise. Have you noticed that as I wrote in comment 20 strong unsafe pure functions like --- size_t f(size_t) nothrow pure; --- also almost always can't be optimized out? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
