On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:00:07 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> 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".
If you aren't going to strip the files, I don't see the point in it.
If you want a 'half stripped' .di file, use the plethora of shell commands
to build it.
The point is, dmd -H does the wrong thing, no matter which way you look at
it. We have a tool to make a .di file with function bodies in it, it's
called cp. dmd -H should do the thing that the shell cannot, let me worry
about it's granularity (i.e. I'll decide on a module basis which functions
should be stripped).
-Steve
