On Sunday, 3 May 2015 at 04:46:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:
i don't thing that such pass in general worth the efforts. D
programmers
tend to use structures for local and short-lived objects. if i
did `new`,
chances are that i really want it on heap, and it will not be
optimisable
This is where one have to decide whether to make a low/system
level language with programmer control or a high level language
with compiler control. If you have GC by default, then it makes
a lot of sense to not even have a stack conceptually and do
explicit allocations and stack allocation as an optimization.
But yeah, a system level language should allow threads to be
terminated which would prevent destructors from being called, and
since GC call destructors on another thread it will change
program behaviour to turn GC allocations into stack allocations
in general...
so it can catch very rare cases for the cost of expensive
interprocedural
analysis. this makes some sense for C++, though.
Well, if D is to be a higher level language than C++, then it
makes more sense for D. Especially since a "threaded view"
through "non-shared" objects could allow better analysis, but
that would require a 100% ban on transferring "non-shared
pointers" to "shared pointers".
D really needs to get a well defined memory model.
