On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
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
I find the @inline confusing, people could mistook it with a
force inline attribute.
Something like @compiletime would be more clear for the tool and
the user.
