On Thu, 10 May 2012 09:56:06 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:04:44 -0400, deadalnix <[email protected]>
wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 17:54, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:47:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/10/12 6:17 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:00:07 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Inlining.
No, I mean if dmd -H isn't going to strip the files, what is the point
of dmd -H? I can already copy the .d to .di and have inlining/ctfe, or
simply use the .d directly.
At this point, in order to get CTFE to work, you have to keep just
about
everything, including private imports. If we want to ensure CTFE works,
dmd -H becomes a glorified cp. If we have some half-assed guess at what
could be CTFE'd (which is growing by the day), then it's likely to not
fit with the goals of the developer running dmd -H.
-Steve
If you can CTFE, you can know what is CTFEable. If it is currently half
assed, then work on it and provide a better tool.
There is already a better tool -- cp. I ask again, what is the benefit
of .di generation if it is mostly a glorified (faulty?) copy operation?
As Adam points out in his original post, ensuring CTFE availability may
not be (and is likely not) why you are creating a .di file.
Plus, what isn't CTFEable today may be CTFEable tomorrow.
inlining is one thing, because that's an optimization that has a valid
fallback. CTFE does not.
-Steve
Exactly this. I am currently in the process of changing the DRuntime
makefiles such that some of the files are not processed as DI's. This
allows Phobos CTFE dependencies on the DRT to remain valid while still
allowing DI's to be generated for parts where they matter, with the goal
of making both a shared and static library build of the DRT. The tool I am
using to accomplish this feat? cp. It works, it delivers exactly what we
need and it's *is not* a broken operation like the current DI generation.
Like Steve said, most people generating DI files are not really worried
about CTFE working, in fact they almost undoubtedly *know* that they are
breaking CTFE, yet they choose to do it anyways. They have their reasons,
and frankly, it doesn't concern us as compiler writers if those reasons
don't line up with our personal moral world-view. Our job is to provide a
tool that DOES WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT. Otherwise they will move on to one that
does. If people expected DI generation to be glorified (and not broken)
copy operation, they would (and do) use cp.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
