On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 23:19:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 22:46:57 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 21:45:42 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 20:23:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
Since D is a systems programming language, wouldn't the user
want to have control over this?
It's just another optimisation in a long list of
optimisations that can be performed without changing
semantics. What about this one is less "systems language"
worthy than - for example - constant folding or dead code
elimination?
What about ABI compatibility ?
Yeah, I guess it's not a traditional optimisation. I'm
suggesting a change to the D ABI to let it use some of the
extra information that D has in function signatures.
This is not a good idea.
Also changing to references is not always a performance win,
It introduces another point where caches can stall.
