On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
<[email protected]> wrote:
The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
etc. anyway.
Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all the problems
of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed functions even in the .d
files).
In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate fully-stripped
code except for templates. If you want functions to be CTFE-able, don't
use auto-generated .di files to import them.
-Steve
Actually the point here is to still be able to benefit of di automated
generation while opportunistically marking certain functions as "put the
body in the .di file".
@inline anyone?
Andrei
